Government of Solomon Islands SOLOMON ISLANDS Impacts of … · 2014-01-13 · vi / Rapid...

Government of Solomon Islands

Rapid Assessmentof the Macro and SectoralImpacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands,April 2014

SOLOMONISLANDS

July 2014

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

WB406484

Typewritten Text

95639

WB406484

Typewritten Text


SOLOMONISLANDS


SOLOMONISLANDS

Rapid Assessmentof the Macro and SectoralImpacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands,April 2014

July 2014

Ministry of Development Planning and Aid CoordinationP.O Box G30Honiara, Solomon IslandsTel: (677) 38255 And Ministry of Finance and TreasuryP.O Box 26Honiara, Solomon IslandsTel: (677) 21058


Published by: The World BankDesign: MikiFernandez / ULTRAdesigns Inc., Washington, D.C.Cover photo: Courtesy of UNOCHA

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms viii

Acknowledgements ix

1. Executive Summary 11.1 Summary of damage and loss 11.2 Summary of macroeconomic impact assessment 11.3 Flood risk management 21.4 Summary of recovery and reconstruction needs 21.5 Way forward 3

2. Introduction 52.1 Overview of floods 52.2 Socioeconomic context of Solomon Islands 52.3 Initial response 52.4 Methodology 62.5 The conceptual framework 6

3. Macroeconomic Impact 73.1 Summary of total effect 73.2 Pre-disaster economic outlook 7

3.2.1 Growth 83.2.2 Current account 83.2.3 Fiscal position 8

3.3 Post-disaster economic outlook 93.3.1 Growth 93.3.2 Current account 93.3.3 Fiscal impacts 9

4. Damage, Loss, and Needs 114.1 Transport 11

4.1.1 Description of the damage 114.1.2 Description of the losses 124.1.3 Damage and loss summary 124.1.4 Government recovery initiatives 124.1.5 Proposed recovery plan 13

iv / Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014

4.1.6 Potential funding options 144.1.7 Recommendation 14

4.2 Water, sanitation, and drainage 154.2.1 Rural service providers (RWSS, Guadalcanal Province EHD) 154.2.2 Urban service providers (Solomon Water, Honiara City Council EHD) 154.2.3 Drainage 164.2.4 Description of the damages 164.2.5 Description of the losses 164.2.6 Government recovery initiatives 174.2.7 Proposed recovery plan 184.2.8 Potential funding options 19

4.3 Agriculture 204.3.1 Description of the damages 214.3.2 Description of the losses 224.3.3 Damage and loss summary 234.3.4 Government recovery initiatives 244.3.5 Proposed recovery plan 244.3.6 Potential funding options 24

4.4 Housing 264.4.1 Description of the damages 264.4.2 Description of the losses 274.4.3 Government recovery initiatives 274.4.4 Proposed recovery plan 284.4.5 Potential funding options 29

4.5 Health and Education 294.5.1 Health 294.5.2 Education 294.5.3 Sector impacts 294.5.4 Description of the damages 294.5.5 Description of the losses 304.5.6 Damage and loss summary 314.5.7 Government recovery initiatives 314.5.8 Proposed recovery plan 314.5.9 Potential funding options 32

5. Managing Flood Risk and Building Urban Risk Resilience 355.1 Setting the context 35

5.1.1 National hazard setting 355.1.2 Urban and peri-urban risk setting 35

Table of Contents / v

5.1.3 Anatomy of a disaster: Underlying causes of the April 2014 flash floods 36

5.2 Breaking the cycle of increasing risk 385.3 Better understanding the risk 38

5.3.1 Flood hazard assessment 385.3.2 Vulnerable areas 40

5.4 Risk-reducing options 405.4.1 Modify the hazard 405.4.2 Modify exposure and vulnerability 415.4.3 Modify short-term responses 42

5.5 Intervention to address risk: Next steps for Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience (BSURE) strategy 42

6. Summary of Recovery and Reconstruction Needs 456.1 Recovery and reconstruction needs 456.2 Future funding requirements 45

Annexes

Annex 1: List of People Consulted 49

Annex 2: Estimation of Damage to Transport Infrastructure 51

Annex 3: Location of Cuts to Road Access 55

Annex 4: List of Build Back Better Structures in Transport Sector 56

Annex 5: Seasonal Crop Calendar, Guadalcanal Province 57

Annex 6: Damage and Loss to Health Facilities (US$) 58

Annex 7: List of Schools with Reported Damage 59

Annex 8: Cycle of Increasing Risk 60

Annex 9: Benchmarking Current Flood Risk Management Practice 61

Annex 10: Institutional Aspects 63

References and Materials Consulted 67

vi / Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014

FiguresFigure 1: Contribution of Damage and Loss to Total Effect 7Figure 2: Total Damage and Loss, by Sector 7Figure 3: Growth in Baseline vs. Post-Flood GDP (including Gold Ridge Mining Ltd.) 9Figure 4: Change in Output (isolated flood impacts) 9Figure 5: Breakdown of Damage and Loss for Water and Sanitation Sector 17Figure 6: Damage to Livestock and Structures in Guadalcanal Province

(as percentage of damage in sector) 21Figure 7: Damage to Livestock and Structures in Honiara

(as percentage of damage in sector) 21Figure 8: Number of Households Sustaining Damage to Food Gardens 22Figure 9: Distribution of Loss in the Crop Subsector 22Figure 10: Loss in Livestock Production, by Commodity (SI$) 23Figure 11: Damage and Losses in the Agriculture Sector 23Figure 12: Location of Houses at Koa Hill Destroyed by Flooding 27Figure 13: Health Losses by Source of Budget 30Figure 14: Informal Settlement Straddling Guadalcanal Province/Honiara City Council 36Figure 15: Analysis of Causes of the April 2014 Mataniko River Flood Disaster 37Figure 16: Strategic Approach to Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience 38Figure 17: Disaster Risk Management Organizational Arrangements 63

TablesTable 1: Summary of Damage and Loss 1Table 2: Summary of Indicative Recovery and Reconstruction Costs (US$ million) 3Table 3: Summary of Disaster Effects 7Table 4: Baseline GDP 8Table 5: Baseline Current Account Deficit 8Table 6: Baseline Fiscal Aggregates (SI$ million) 8Table 7: Potential Current Account Impacts of Gold Ridge Mine Closure (% GDP) 9Table 8: Damage and Loss Summary for Transport (US$ million) 12Table 9: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Transport 13Table 10: Medium- and Long-Term Recovery Needs for Transport 13Table 11: Potential Funding Sources and Financing Gap for Transport 14Table 12: Summary Health Statistics for Water and Sanitation Sector 15Table 13: Damage and Loss Summary for Water and Sanitation (US$ million) 17Table 14: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Water and Sanitation Sector 18Table 15: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Water and Sanitation Sector 19Table 16: Potential Funding Sources for Water and Sanitation Sector 19Table 17: Pre-disaster Livestock in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City 20Table 18: Number of Livestock Lost in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City 21Table 19: Damage and Loss by Subsector (US$ million) 23

Table of Contents / vii

Table 20: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Agriculture 24Table 21: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Agriculture 24Table 22: Potential Funding Options for Agriculture 26Table 23: Damage and Loss Summary for Housing 28Table 24: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Housing 28Table 25: Damage and Losses in Health and Education (US$ million) 31Table 26: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Health and Education 32Table 27: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Health and Education 32Table 28: Potential Funding Sources in Health and Education 33Table 29: Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience Strategy 43Table 30: Total Recovery and Reconstruction Needs (US$ million) 45Table 31: Recovery & Reconstruction Needs 46Table 32: Key Government Organizations Involved in Flood in Flood Risk

Management in Honiara 65

viii / Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB Asian Development BankBBB build back betterBSURE Building and Strengthening Urban ResilienceCHS community high schoolCLTS community-led total sanitation DRM disaster risk managementECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the CaribbeanEHD Environmental Health DivisionFOPA FestivalofthePacificArtsGDP gross domestic productHAP Humanitarian Action PlanMAL Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock DevelopmentMCA Ministry of Civil AviationMDC municipal disaster committeeMDPAC Ministry of Development Planning and Aid CoordinationMECDM Ministry of Environment Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology MEHRD Ministry of Education and Human Resource DevelopmentMHMS Ministry of Health and Medical ServicesMID Ministry of Infrastructure DevelopmentMFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade New ZealandMLHS Ministry of Lands, Housing and SurveyMoFT Ministry of Finance and TreasuryNDMO NationalDisasterManagementOfficeNSS national secondary school NTF National Transport FundPDC provincial disaster committeePSS provincial secondary schoolRWASH rural water, sanitation, and hygieneRWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation projectSIWA Solomon Islands Water AuthorityRDB Rural Development ProgrammeWASH water, sanitation, and hygieneWSPA World Society for the Protection of Animals

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Exchange Rate Effective January 13, 2014)

Currency Unit = Solomon Islands DollarSI$7.32 = US$1

US$1.53 = SDR1

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 – December 31

Acknowledgments

This rapid assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the recent flooding in Honiara and Guadalcanal would not have been possible without the dedication and support of Solomon Islands ministries and departments and their staff, who contributed both time and expertise. The drive and dedication of these individuals underpins the government-led approach to disaster risk management and is a model for improved coordination of efforts to promote a more resilient Solomon Islands.

For their leadership, support, and cooperation throughout the assessment, special acknowledgment is extended to Mr. Jeremiah Manele, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination (MDPAC); Dr. Melchior Mataki, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM); and Shadrach Fanega, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Treasury (MoFT).

The assessment was prepared with financialsupport from the Africa Caribbean Pacific–EuropeanUnion Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program, which is managed by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction andRecovery.Technicalandfinancialsupportcamefromthe World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and various agencies of the United Nations. The assessment has greatly benefitted from the dedicated involvementand valuable contributions of Mr. Daniel Rove (MDPAC), Ms. Rose Kitau (MDPAC), Mr. Andrew Prakash (MDPAC),

Mr. Dentana McKinnie (MoFT), Ms. Samantha Cook (Consultant, MECDM), Mr. Denis Jordy (Senior Environment Specialist, World Bank), Mr. Michael Bonte-Grapentin (Senior Disaster Management Specialist), Mr. Tobias Haque, (Economist, World Bank), Ms. Dominique Blariaux (Consultant, Food and Agriculture Organization),Mr.PiviIndrawansa(SeniorProjectOfficer,ADB), Mr. Paula Baleilevuka (Infrastructure Adviser, ADB), Mr. Oliver Whalley (World Bank), Mr. Mat Thame (Consultant, UNICEF), Mr. Alan McNeil (Consultant, World Bank), Mr. Stephen Yeo (Consultant, World Bank), Dr. Colleen Butcher-Gollach (Consultant, World Bank); and the staff from the following ministries: Development Planning and Aid Coordination; Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology; Infrastructure Development; Finance and Treasury; and Agriculture and Livestock Development. A full list of the assessment team and contributors is included in annex 1. To all of these contributors the team would like to express its deepest gratitude and appreciation.

/ ix

x / Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014

Ita dumped intense rain on the Solomon Islands, leading to flash floods and landslides that killed 22 people, displaced 10,000 from their homes. and affected at least 50,000. Photo: credit

Executive Summary / 1

A slow-moving tropical depression caused persistent heavy rains in the Solomon Islands between April 1 and April 4, 2014. The highest recorded daily rainfall associated with this event was

318mminHoniaraonApril3.TherainscausedflashfloodinginHoniara,Guadalcanal,Isabel,Malaita,and Makira-Ulawa. More than 732mm of rain was recorded over four days at the Honiara rain gauge, although heavier rainfall was reported inland. On April 5, as the system moved away from the Solomon Islands, it was upgraded to Tropical Cyclone Ita.

1.1 Summary of damage and lossThe total economic value of the flooding’s impactis estimated at SI$787.3 million (US$107.8 million) (see table 1). This is equivalent to 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Solomon Islands and givesanindicationofthescaleoftheflooding.

The sectors that sustained the highest level of damage were housing and transport; these accounted for 56 percent and 23 percent of damage, respectively. In contrast, the greatest economic loss is expected in the mining sector (50 percent) and agriculture sector (31 percent).

1.2 Summary of macroeconomic impact assessment

Theflooding isexpectedtohaveasubstantialnegativeimpact on growth. It is expected that output will decline by5.1percentfromthepre-floodestimate.Asubstantialproportion of the negative impact is due to closure of the Gold Ridge mine. Excluding the impacts of the Gold Ridge closure, the negative impact is estimated at 2.7 percent. Ignoring any positive impacts from reconstruction stimulus, growth for 2014 could be expected to decline from baseline projections of 4.0 percent to negative 1.1 percent.

1. Executive Summary

Table 1: Summary of Damage and Loss

SectorTotal Damage (SB$ million)

Total Loss (SB$ million)

Total Damage and Loss

(SB$ million)

Total Damage and Loss

(US$ million)% of Total Damage

and Loss

Social 223.4 16.7 240.1 32.9 31

Housing 213.2 5.6 218.8 30.0 28

Health & education 10.1 11.1 21.2 2.9 3

Productive 63.1 346.2 409.2 56.0 52

Agriculture 8.8 122.7 131.5 18.0 17

Commerce 54.3 21.0 75.3 10.3 10

Mining - 202.5 202.5 27.7 26

Infrastructure 95.8 41.0 136.8 18.7 17

Transport 87.6 16.1 103.7 14.2 13

Water & sanitation 8.3 24.9 33.2 4.5 4

Total 382.2 403.9 786.2 107.7 100

As a % of GDP 4.5 4.7 9.2 Source: EstimatesarebasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

2 / Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014

The current account deficit is expected to widensignificantlyasaresultofisolatedimpactsoftheflood.At thisstage, thecurrentaccountdeficit isexpectedtoincrease by 2.6 percent in 2014, primarily due to the closure of the Gold Ridge mine.

Closure of the Gold Ridge mine is also responsible for the largest impact on government revenue: revenue losses of around SI$120 million (US$ 16.4 million) are expected in fiscal year 2014. The aggregate revenueloss, including revenue loss from the mine closure, is estimated at SI$193.2 million. Excluding the impacts of mine closure, the estimated revenue loss is around SI$34 millionoverthe2014fiscalyear.

1.3 Flood risk managementTwenty-twopeoplelosttheirlivesinfloodingalongtheMataniko River caused by the heavy rains of April 1–4, 2014. A number of “near misses” were also reported, with several people holding on to the apex of the church roof, and a boy surviving despite being washed downriver fromKoaHilltothesea.Hadthefloodoccurredatnight,with houses fully occupied and the rising floodwatersbeing more difficult for inhabitants to detect in thedarkness, there might well have been hundreds of fatalities. In addition to causing fatalities, the floodingdestroyed 235 houses along the valley, washed away the Old Mataniko Bridge, and inundated classrooms at Honiara High School. Many businesses in Chinatown wereimpactedbytheflooding,includingsomethatwereaffected by extensive riverbank erosion.

The serious impact of the disaster can largely be attributed to the exposure and vulnerability arising from significant unregulated urbanization.More specifically,it can be attributed to the many highly exposed houses located on dangerously low ground such as Koa Hill—and to the presence of low-resilience (traditional leaf) housing styles, which were disproportionately damaged (thoughtheflooddepths,velocities,anddebrisloadweresuch that even block concrete houses were destroyed at Koa Hill). Limited community response to warnings may also have contributed to the impact.

Flooding events of this type are unfortunately not unusual in the Solomon Islands, which is one of the 20

countries most vulnerable to natural hazards. Flood damage in Honiara City and Guadalcanal previously occurred as a result of Cyclone Angela (1966), Cyclone Glenda (1967), Cyclone Carlotta (1972), Cyclone Kerry (1979), Cyclone Bernie (1982), Cyclone Namu (1986), Cyclone Ului (2010), and Cyclone Yasi (2011), and as a result of excessively heavy rainfall in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and 2012.

Priorityactivitiesandinvestmentsformanagingfloodrisk and strengthening urban risk resilience have been identifiedandclusteredasfollows:(i)actionstomodifythe hazard (e.g., drainage works, river bank protection, catchment forestation), (ii) actions to modify human use of floodplain (incentives, enforcement and education,informal settlement upgrading), and (iii) actions to modify the human response to flooding (strengthening of thenational floodwarning system,hazard-proofevacuationcenters). These key actions could form the basis for an urbanfloodriskmanagementmasterplan.

1.4 Summary of recovery and reconstruction needs

Table 2 summarizes the estimated costs for recovery and reconstruction. Total recovery and reconstruction is estimated at SI$401 million (US$56.03 million). Of this amount, SI$99 million (US$14.59 million) is required in the short term (three to six months) with the remaining activities, including some “build back better” (BBB) initiatives, focused over the medium to long term (beyond six months).

Preliminary discussions among sectors and development partners indicate that US$13.58 million in aid may be available, which would reduce the recovery and reconstruction bill to US$41.5 million. In addition, some sectors—health and education as well as water and sanitation—may be able to bear some of the costs of damage repair from their sector budget support. The of Development Planning and Aid Coordination and the Ministry of Finance and Treasury should establish with donor partners the full potential of their contributions. Equally, line ministries should establish the level of financialcoststhatcanbeabsorbedfromsectorbudgets.

Executive Summary / 3

1.5 Way forwardThe damage, loss, and needs assessment points to the followingaskeycomponentstoinformthegovernment’srecovery and reconstruction strategy:

■■ The loss of production from the premature closure of Gold Ridge mine accounts for 26 percent of total loss. Loss of mine production will impact govern-ment revenues and employment and also pose an environmental risk should the mine be left in its cur-rent condition. The negative revenue implications of the mine closure should be taken into account by the government and donors when considering options andfinancingsourcesforrecoveryneeds.

■■ The Solomon Islands Water Authority (SIWA) will facesevere financialconstraints, includingsignifi-cantly higher operational costs while repairs are under way and may require additional support from the government.

■■ The impact on livelihoods from damage to food gar-dens is also concerning, given the many households who rely on these gardens for both income and sub-sistence. In the short term, a higher-than-ordinary level of coordination will be required in the agricul-ture sector toaddress identifiedneeds, suchasbyproviding seeds and tools to the most affected areas.

■■ Repairs to roads and bridges should be addressed as soon as possible to minimize the secondary im-pacts to the greater economy (e.g., higher transpor-tation costs, impaired access to goods produced

in rural areas). Particular attention should also be paid to the longer-term flood resilience of roads,bridges, and the Henderson Airport.

■■ The underlying levels of hazard and vulnerability asso-ciatedwiththefloodsmustbeaddressed.Unplannedurban growth, high exposure of people and key public assets to natural hazards and floods, low-resiliencehousing standards, lack of an effective storm water management network, and inadequate community earlywarningandresponsetoflashfloodsareallis-sues that need attention. Short-term actions and next stepsincludefloodhazardmapping,communitycon-sultation to upgrade highly vulnerable informal set-tlements,designandimplementationofaflashfloodwarning system for the Mataniko River, and establish-mentofafloodriskcoordinationmechanism.Alon-ger-termprogramwillbeneededtostrengthenfloodrisk management and urban resilience.

■■ Reconstruction and recovery needs (detailed in chap-ter 6) and flood risk management needs (detailedin chapter 5) provide a number of options for each sector that should be considered by the government. Funding priorities should be established in consulta-tion with the government and its development part-ners, possibly through a donor conference to establish the full potential of international assistance. Equally, lineministriesshouldestablishtheleveloffinancialcost that can be absorbed from existing sector budget support. Detailed recovery/resilience plans and pro-grams will be required for sectors where clear fund-ingoptionshavebeenidentified.

Table 2: Summary of Indicative Recovery and Reconstruction Costs (US$ million)

Sector Short Term Medium to Long Term Total

Transport 5.84 28.81 34.65a

Water & sanitation 0.74 4.50 5.24b

Agriculture 2.90 2.73 5.63c

Housing 2.62 2.62

Health & education 1.49 5.42 6.91

Total 13.59 41.46 55.03

Source: EstimatesarebasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

a. Early indications suggest that US$12.08 million of this has already been sourced. Please refer to the discussion of transport (section 4.1).

b. Around US$370,000 has been received from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia and World Vision. Please refer to the discussion of water and sanitation (section 4.2).

c. Approximately US$1.13 million indicated; see section 4.3 on the agriculture sector.

The flooding was the worst in living memory in some locations. It caused 22 fatalities across the country, internally displaced some 10,000 people initially, and affected approximately 52,000 people in total. It also damaged major infrastructure and destroyed 675 houses along with the food gardens that many people depend upon for their livelihood.

Henderson International Airport, inundated runway. Photo: RAMSI

/ 5

2.1 Overview of floodsA slow-moving tropical depression caused persistent heavy rains in the Solomon Islands between April 1 and April 4, 2014. The highest recorded daily rainfall associated with this event was 318mm in Honiara on April 3. The rains caused flash flooding in Honiara,Guadalcanal, Isabel, Malaita, and Makira-Ulawa. More than 732mm of rain was recorded over four days at the Honiara rain gauge, although heavier rainfall was reported inland. On April 5, 2014, as the system moved away from the Solomon Islands, it was upgraded to Tropical Cyclone Ita.

The flooding was the worst in living memory insome locations. It caused 22 fatalities across the country, internally displaced some 10,000 people initially, and affected approximately 52,000 people in total. It also damaged major infrastructure and destroyed 675 houses along with the food gardens that many people depend upon for their livelihood.

2.2 Socioeconomic context of Solomon Islands

The estimated population of the Solomon Islands is 515,870, and its estimated growth rate is 2.3 percent (Solomon Islands National Statistics Office 2009). Thepopulation is spread across 845 islands of the 992 islands that make up the country and that cover an area of 24,000km2. With 80 percent of the total population living in rural areas, disaster response is often time-consuming and expensive; high post-disaster transportation costs placeasignificantburdenonthegovernmentandhaveled to delays in the distribution of relief goods in the past.

The Solomon Islands economy is largely based on services (around 40 percent of GDP), agriculture (around 15 percent of GDP), and forestry (around 15 percent of GDP). Manufacturing remains a minuscule sector, and much of the population depends on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods. In the last five years,

average annual real GDP grew by 4.9 percent, driven by a consolidationofgovernmentfinances,theaccumulationofsignificantforeignexchangereservesdespiteongoingtradedeficits, andeasing inflationarypressures.Theseconditions were the result of a supportive external environment in the wake of the 2009 global financialcrisis, as well as continued strong donor support.

2.3 Initial responseInthewakeoftheflooding,HoniaraCityandGuadalcanalProvince were declared a disaster zone. On April 5, the Solomon Islands government requested international emergency assistance to aid relief efforts.

The Solomon Islands government has worked with the international community, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders to address humanitarian response needs. The government has sought assistance from Pacific Humanitarian Team personnel (which isledbytheUnitedNationsOfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarian Affairs), and has also requested supplies to supportresponseefforts.AspartofPacificHumanitarianTeam support and through the Australian government–funded Pacific Risk Resilience Programme, the UnitedNations Development Programme has provided early-recovery technical advice to the Ministry of Provincial Development and surge capacity to the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO). The Secretariat of thePacific Community has provided disaster coordinationcapacity support to the NDMO as part of package to assist the government with response and long-term recovery.

Approximately SI$58 million (US$7.9 million) has been donated by development partners, international organizations, local nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individuals in the form of cash grants and aid in-kind (e.g., hygiene kits, tarpaulins, water purificationtablets).

The Solomon Islands government has authorized the release of SI$5 million (US$685,000) from the contingency

2. Introduction


fund to facilitate initial response and relief activities. An additional contingency warrant of SI$9 million (US$1.2 million) has been approved; approximately SI$6 million (US$822,000) is being provided by Papua New Guinea.

The disaster relief budget allocated to the National Disaster Council is small—SI$1.9 million (US$260,000)—andwasquicklyexhaustedfollowingthefloods.Thisisthesecond year in a row that a single disaster has exhausted not only the relief budget but also the operational budgetof thecouncil.Thefiscalyear is thesameasthecalendaryear;boththefloodsin2014andtheSantaCruzearthquakein2013occurredinthefirstfourmonthsofthe year, leaving the NDMO with only enough funds to cover its fixed costs for the remainder of the year. Thissituation is potentially serious since another hazard event could affect the Solomon Islands in 2014.

2.4 MethodologyThis assessment was conducted by a multidisciplinary, multi-agency team—comprising the World Bank, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Asian Development Bank (ADB), UN agencies, and other relevant stakeholders—that consulted with the Solomon Islands government. The assessment team was able to use the results of the initial damage assessments and the Humanitarian Action Plan (HAP) (Solomon Islands Government 2014). A full list of references can be found at the end of this report.

The damage and loss methodology was developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), based on its work in Central America in the early 1970s and in the Caribbean in the 1980s and 1990s. This methodology has evolved over time, and the Guidance Notes for Damage, Loss and Needs Assessment (GFDRR 2010) and the recently revised Handbook for Disaster Assessment (ECLAC 2014) have been used to guide this assessment.

2.5 The conceptual frameworkThe methodology used for assessing the effects of a disaster or extreme event proceeds from the bottom up: information about the effects of the event is captured sector by sector, and the data are aggregated to arrive at the event’s total effect on society and the economy.The methodology makes use of a country’s nationalaccounting framework for valuation of the damage and loss and for categorization of the effects.

The effects are described as damage and losses. In keeping with the standard definitions, damage is the “total or partial destruction of physical assets existing in the affected area. Damage occurs during and immediately after the disaster and is measured in physical units (… square meters of housing, kilometres of roads…). Its monetary value is expressed in terms of replacement costs according to prices prevailing just before the event”. Lossesare“changesineconomicflowsarisingfromthedisaster. They occur until full economic recovery and reconstruction is achieved, in some cases lasting for several years. Typical losses include the decline in output in productive sectors (agriculture, livestock, fisheries,industry, commerce, tourism)” (GFDRR 2010, 2:2).

Estimating the damage and loss is one of the critical components of the assessment methodology. A second criticalcomponentisanalyzingtheevent’simpactontheeconomy and society; drawn mainly from the estimate of losses, this analysis can be used in planning for recovery and reconstruction. The value of damage is used as the basis for estimating reconstruction needs, while the value of losses provides the means for estimating the financialneedsforeconomicrecovery.

The ultimate goal of the assessment is to measure inmonetary and social terms the disaster’s impact onthe society, economy, and environment of the affected country or region. This information in turn makes it possible to quantify the financial needs for economicrecovery and reconstruction with risk reduction.

/ 7

3.1 Summary of total effectThe total economic value of the effects caused by the flooding is estimated at SI$787.3 million (US$107.8million). This is equivalent to 9.2 percent of GDP in the

3. Macroeconomic Impact

Table 3: Summary of Disaster Effects

Sector Total Damage (SB$ million)

Total Loss (SB$ million)

Total Damage & Loss

(SB$ million)

Total Damage & Loss

(US$ million)

% of Total Damage and Loss

Social 223.4 16.7 240.1 32.9 31Housing 213.2 5.6 218.8 30.0 28Health & education 10.1 11.1 21.2 2.9 3Productive 63.1 346.2 409.2 56.0 52Agriculture 8.8 122.7 131.5 18.0 17Commerce 54.3 21.0 75.3 10.3 10Mining - 202.5 202.5 27.7 26Infrastructure 95.8 41.0 136.8 18.7 17Transport 87.6 16.1 103.7 14.2 13Water & sanitation 8.3 24.9 33.2 4.5 4Total 382.2 403.9 786.2 107.7 100As a % of GDP 4.5 4.7 9.2

Source:EstimatesarebasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

Figure 1: Contribution of Damage and Loss to Total Effect

Figure 2: Total Damage and Loss, by Sector

49%51%

31%

17%

52%

■ Social■ Productive■ Infrastructure

■ Damage■ Loss

Source: Estimates are based on official data from the Solomon Islandsgovernment.

Solomon Islands and gives an indication of the scale of theflooding(seetable3).

Just over half (51 percent) of the total effect is attributable to loss, and just under half (49 percent) is attributable to damage (see figure 1). Themajorityof damage and loss—52 percent—came from the productivesectors,mostlyminingandagriculture(figure2). To stimulate future growth, appropriate recovery and reconstruction plans will need to be developed that address the needs in these sectors.

Damage was largely incurred in the transport and housing sector. Work has begun to repair access roads, and owners of private dwellings are expected to have begun repairs to their own homes. The repair to both these sectors is expected to boost growth in the commercial sector.

3.2 Pre-disaster economic outlook This section discusses the pre-disaster economic outlook for the Solomon Islands and gives a brief overview of the


baseline projections for output, the current account, and thecentralgovernment’sfiscalposition.

3.2.1 GrowthGrowth of 4.0 percent in 2014 was projected on the basis of steady production at the Gold Ridge mine and improvements in logging and agricultural production. Following the rapid growth in 2010 and 2011, which was driven by expansion of gold and strong timber production, growth moderated to 3.8 percent in 2012.

Growth of 3 percent in 2013 reflected unsupportiveexport prices during the first half of the year andassociated weakening of key commodity production. Declines in logging and gold output—driven by low prices, interruptions to production at the Gold Ridge mine, and (possibly) the depletion of natural forest stocks—were not completely offset by improvements in export commodity prices and production during the second half of the year. The baseline GDP for the fiveyears beginning in 2011 is shown in table 4.

Table 4: Baseline GDP2011 2012 2013 2014 (F) 2015 (F)

Nominal GDP (SI$ billion) 6,637 7,281 7,946 8,800 9,345Real GDP growth (%) 10.7 3.8 3.0 4.0 3.6

Source: BasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

Table 5: Baseline Current Account Deficit2011 2012 2013 2014 (F) 2015 (F)

Current account deficit (% GDP) 6.7 +0.2 (surplus) 4.2 13.0 12.4Source:BasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

Table 6: Baseline Fiscal Aggregates (SI$ million)FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 (F) FY15 (F)

Total revenue & grants 2,713.7 3,164.3 3,139.4 3,502.3 3,580.9 Tax revenue 2,076.6 2,282.2 2,420.1 2,610.3 2,793.1 Non-tax revenue 205.4 196 227.6 227.6 230.6 Recurrent grants 267.5 171.8 276.8 584.4 342.8 Development grants 164.2 514.3 214.9 80 214.4Expenditure 2,393.1 3,309.3 3,021.9 3,503 3,580.7 Recurrent 1,870 2,402.1 2,318 2,861.9 2,692.3 Development 523.1 907.2 703.9 641.1 888.4Fiscal balance (including grants) 320.6 -145.0 175.2 -0.7 0.2Cash balance 602.0 601.3 601.5


3.2.2 Current accountThe current account deficit was expected to widen to13 percent of GDP in 2014. In December 2013, foreign exchange reserves reached a new peak of SI$3,555 million (US$487 million), up from SI$3,431 million (US$470 million) at the end of 2012. This amount provides over 11 months of import cover, which will help to provide a buffer to protect the Solomon Islands from adverse movements in global prices. The baseline current account deficit for the five years beginning in2011 is shown in table 5.

3.2.3 Fiscal positionBeforethefloodingofApril2014,thegovernmentwasforecasting a balanced budget for 2014. The Ministry of Finance and Treasury (MoFT), realizing a surplus of approximately SI$175million in fiscal year 2013 (theresult of underspending in the consolidated development budget), projected a balanced budget for the year. Cash reserves stood at around SI$600 million (US$82 million) immediatelybeforetheflooding,comfortablyabovetheInternationalMonetaryFundbenchmarkfloorofSI$411million (US$56 million). Baseline fiscal aggregates forthefiveyearsstartingin2011areshownintable6.

3. Macroeconomic Impact / 9

closure, the negative impact is estimated at 2.7 percent, asshowninfigure4.

Figure 3: Growth in Baseline vs. Post-Flood GDP (including Gold Ridge Mining Ltd.)

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

-1%

-2%

Real GDP Growth

Perc

enta

ge

Year

3.80%

2012

3.0%

2013

4.0%

2014 P (Isolated)

-1.1%

2014(Aggregate)

0.10%

2014

0%

-1%

-2%

-3%

-4%

-5%

-6%

Perc

enta

ge

WithGRML

ExcludingGRML

-5.1%

-2.7%

Change in output for 2014

Figure 4: Change in Output (isolated flood impacts)

3.3 Post-disaster economic outlookThis section presents the estimated impacts of the Honi-arafloodingoneconomicgrowth,thegovernment’sfiscalposition, and the balance of payments. It is important to note that any consideration of potential positive impacts on growth, revenue, and the balance of payments aris-ingfromgovernmentordonorresponsestothefloodinghave been omitted. These estimates should be viewed as providing a sense of the scale of negative impacts, rather than a forecast of likely outcomes.

3.3.1 GrowthIgnoring any positive impacts from reconstruction stimulus, growth for 2014 could be expected to decline from baseline projections of 4.0 percent to negative 1.1 percent. If positive impacts from recovery activities are taken into account, we estimate GDP growth of 0.1 percentin2014.Thisisillustratedinfigure3.

Table 7: Potential Current Account Impacts of Gold Ridge Mine Closure (% GDP)Temporary Closure Permanent Closure

Flood impact relative to baseline 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016Baseline CAD -13.0 -12.4 -11.9 -13.0 -12.4 -11.9Post-flood CAD -15.6 -13.5 -12.9 -15.6 -15.4 -14.7Change in CAD, % GDP -2.60 -1.10 -1.00 -2.60 -3.00 -2.80Forex reserves (SI$ million) -157 -153 -150 -157 -331 -506


Note: CAD=currentaccountdeficit;forex=foreignexchange.

The flooding is expected to have a substantialnegativeimpactongrowth.Weestimatethatthefloodswill cause a reduction in output of 5.1 percent from the pre-floodbaseline in2014.Asubstantialproportionofthenegative impactof the floods is throughclosureofthe Gold Ridge mine. Excluding impacts of Gold Ridge

3.3.2 Current accountThe current account deficit is expected to widensignificantly as a result of isolatednegative impacts oftheflood.A2.6percentincreaseinthecurrentaccountdeficit isexpected in2014,primarilybecause theGoldRidge mine has been closed. Impacts over the medium-term will depend on whether the mine reopens. Table 7 shows potential impacts if the mine remains closed at the end of 2014 and also under a permanent closure scenario. Both scenarios assume no positive or negative impactsfromdonorinflows.

3.3.3 Fiscal impactsThe largest impact on revenue comes from the closure of the Gold Ridge mine. The closure is likely to result in revenue losses of around SI$120 million (US$16 million) infiscalyear2014.Additionalrevenuelosseswillarisefrom the loss of output for businesses supplying the mine, and from disruption of business activity and lost profitsoutsidetheminingsector.Theaggregaterevenueloss, including revenue loss from closure of the mine, is SI$193.2 million ($US 26.5 million). Excluding the


impacts of the mine, we estimate revenue loss of around SI$34millionoverthefiscalyear.

Fiscal costs to date have been relatively minor. SI$5 million (US$685,000) has been spent from the NDMO recurrent budget allocation. An additional SI$6 million (US$820,000) has been accessed through the contingencyfund.Aflashappealaccount(heldatCentral

Bank of Solomon Islands) and managed by the National DisasterCommitteehasbeenusedto financea furtherSI$2.3 million (US$315,000) for emergency recovery needs. SI$15 million in constituency fund allocations has been distributed to members of Parliament to assist with recovery needs; these funds are expected to be recouped from budget support pledged by Taiwan.

The largest impact on revenue comes from the closure of the Gold Ridge mine. The closure is likely to result in revenue losses of around SI$120million (US$16million) in fiscal year 2014. Additionalrevenue losses will arise from the loss of output for businesses supplying themine,andfromdisruptionofbusinessactivityandlostprofitsoutsidethe mining sector.

Ignoring any positive impact from reconstruction, growth for 2014 could be expected to decline from baseline projection to negative 1.1 percent.

Gold Ridge mine. Photo: Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s (SPC) Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC)

/ 11

4.1 TransportThe government’s vision for the transport sectoris effective transport infrastructure and services that support sustained economic growth and social development in the Solomon Islands. The country’stransport sector includes land, maritime, and aviation subsectors. Investment in the transport sector is prioritized in the National Transport Plan 2010 and financed through a combination of grants andnormal budget appropriation. The National Transport Fund (NTF) is the main source of funding for the transport sector. The government of New Zealand, the government of Japan, the European Union, and the ADB are also investing in the transport sector but are not contributing to the NTF, opting instead to directly finance projects through parallel fundingarrangements.Thegovernment’scapitalandrecurrentbudgets, supplemented by grants from the government of Australia, provide the funds for the NTF.

The government has invested significantly intransport infrastructure, with budget allocations of SI$100 million (US$13.7 million) in 2012 and SI$118 million (US$16.16 million) in 2013. The majority of the funding allocated is for the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads and bridges and reconstruction of wharves and jetties. Responsibility for the transport sector lies with the Ministry of Infrastructure Development (MID) for land and maritime subsectors and with the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) for the aviation subsector.

The transport infrastructure affected by the April 2014floodsincludedtheroadandbridgenetworkacrossGuadalcanal, Makira, Malaita, and Isabel Provinces; the international and domestic terminals at Henderson Airport in Honiara; and the market wharf in Honiara.

4.1.1 Description of the damageThis section describes the physical damage observed following the April 2014 Solomon Islands floods. Adetailed list of transport infrastructure damaged due to floodsisinannex2.

Land subsector. A combination of large flows anddebris buildup caused extensive damage to bridges in the network: piers, abutments, approaches, scour protection, and service connections all sustained damage. The Old Mataniko Bridge in Honiara’s central business districtwas completely washed away, and erosion occurred at the eastern approach to the new Mataniko Bridge, the only bridge connecting East and West Honiara. Two of nine upstream piers of the Mberande Bridge in East Guadalcanal were damaged, and bridge approaches in several bridges in Guadalcanal, Makira, and Isabel Provinces collapsed or were washed away.

Headwalls and wing walls of several box and pipe culverts and causeway approaches were damaged, and several culverts were completely washed away due to excessive flows. The accumulation of debrisand sediments blocked roadside drainage, and some channels were eroded.

Because of overtopping floodwaters and theresulting erosion, road shoulders were damaged and potholes were created in the roadway. Landslides were also recorded in Honiara, West Guadalcanal Road toward Lambi, and Isabel Province. Where the road formation wassubmergedforanextendedperiodaftertheflooding,degradation of the pavement will be accelerated, observableatfirstaswidespreadpotholing,rutting,andcracking of pavement before eventual failure.

In summary, access was cut off at one location in Honiara, two locations in East Guadalcanal, eight locations along West Guadalcanal, and one location along the Buala-Garanga Road in Isabel Province. A map showing cutoff locations in East to West Guadalcanal is in annex 3.

Aviation subsector. Henderson Airport in Honiara was closed for two days due to submergence of the runway and apron. Floodwater damaged a 500m length of the airport fence and deposited debris on the runway. Damage was also recorded to the drainage culvert outlet,domesticterminalandoffices,runwaymarkings,

4. Damage, Loss, and Needs


runway lighting system, perimeter road, back road, outer drainage, and domestic car park.

Maritime subsector. Significant damage occurredto the central market wharf in Honiara. The bow of a small ship severed the landward span of the wharf, and the concrete slab of the wharf collapsed onto the beach below. The Solomon Islands Ports Authority confirmsthat the wharf was not operational prior to the disaster, however, so the impact of the damage is considered minimal.

4.1.2 Description of the lossesLand subsector. Economic losses for road transportation include increased travel times as a result of congestion and alternative routes, as well as direct payments required by some landowners for use of road diversions at cutoff locations. Vehicle operating costs will also increase due to poor road conditions and diversions. The majority of the loss is attributed to the unprecedented congestion at the new Mataniko Bridge, a result of the Old Mataniko Bridge being washed away. Increased travel times prevailed until completion of the temporary Bailey bridge at the Old Mataniko Bridge site in June 2014. Bus operators continue to lose revenue because travel delays have reduced the number of trips they can make per day.

Aviation subsector. Aviation sector losses are those incurred due to the two-day closure of the international and domestic terminals of Henderson Airport in Honiara. The main losses are (i) revenue loss due to cancellation ofinternationalanddomesticflights,and(ii)disruptionlossduetoreschedulingofflightsbothininternationaland domestic segments.

Maritime subsector. At the time when the weather warning was issued—about 72 hours before the worst

weather hit in Honiara on April 3—about 140 vessels, including 40 fishing vessels, were in operation in theterritorial seas. The heavy weather, wind, and swell affected the vessels for about 96 hours after the storm had passed. Of the 140 vessels, 9 were blown ashore on Guadalcanal around Honiara port. Six of these vessels havesincebeenrefloated,whilethreehavebeenrecordedas a total loss. Cargo operations were severely hampered for about 12 hours because of debris at Honiara port. The revenue losses arising from operational delays are the main contributor to the losses in the maritime sector.

4.1.3 Damage and loss summaryTable 8 summarizes the cost of damage to transport infrastructure and the value of losses attributed to the damage. The cost of the damage includes (i) emergency costs to restore connectivity, and (ii) the cost of restoring structures to their pre-disaster state.

Given that there are no records of privately owned transport infrastructure (such as logging roads), the responsibility for the costs of damage and losses falls entirely on the government. The damage to the central market wharf in Honiara is not included in table 8 because, as explained above, the wharf was not an operational prior to the disaster.

The losses from damage to shipping vessels and the revenue loss of bus operators have not been included in table 1. They are covered separately under the commercial sector.

4.1.4 Government recovery initiativesThe government has directly procured materials, machines, and labor to construct a temporary bridge over the unsupported eastern approach slab to the new Mataniko Bridge. The government has waived the

Table 8: Damage and Loss Summary for Transport (US$ million)

Damage Losses Total

Land 8.49 2.26 10.75

Aviation 1.40 0.26 1.66

Maritime – 4.50 4.50

Total 9.89 7.02 16.91Source: Ministry of Infrastructure Development; Ministry of Civil Aviation; Solomon Islands Ports Authority; Solomon Islands Maritime Safety Authority.

Note: – = negligible.

4. Damage, Loss, and Needs / 13

normal procurement process to allow shopping for emergency repair works at other sites. The initial focus is on restoring connectivity.

Through MID, the government has designed and called tenders for three emergency-repair contract packages to restore connectivity in West Guadalcanal. These contracts will likely be awarded by early May 2014, and work will commence immediately afterwards.

At the request of the government, the government of New Zealand has pledged assistance to supply and erect a new single-lane Bailey bridge at the Old Mataniko Bridge site. A New Zealand–based contractor (Downer New Zealand) has been commissioned to carry out the project. Preliminary work for construction of the center pier is in progress, with the entire structure likely to be completed by late June 2014.

The Government has requested the Government of Japan to advance the proposed assistance to improve Kukum Highway which includes construction of an

additional two lane bridge upstream of new Mataniko Bridge and a two lane bridge at Old Mataniko bridge site. Construction of the new bridges will commence in April 2015 rather than August 2015 as originally proposed.

A contract package has been prepared to repair damage to Henderson Airport, and the government has asked donor partners for additional financing tomake transport infrastructure more resilient to natural hazards.

4.1.5 Proposed recovery planShort-term recovery. The priority for the transport sector is to restore connectivity to essential services such as hospitals, schools, markets, and the main commercial centers in Honiara. The estimated total cost of short-term recovery for emergency repairs is given in table 9.

Medium- to long-term recovery. The medium- to long-term recovery needs are included in table 10. Medium-term needs represent the cost of returning the damaged transportassetstotheirpre-floodcondition.Long-term

Table 9: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Transport

Activity Needs (US$ million)

Repair to unpaved roads 0.05

Repair to paved roads 1.83

Repair to bridges 2.36

Repair to culverts and road-related drainage 0.21

Repair to Henderson Airport 1.39

Total 5.84

Source: Ministry of Infrastructure Development; Ministry of Civil Aviation.

Table 10: Medium- and Long-Term Recovery Needs for Transport

ActivityMedium-Term Needs

(US$ million)Long-Term Needs (BBB)

(US$ million)

Repair to damaged unpaved roads 0.23

Repair to damaged paved roads 0.52

Repair to damaged bridges 2.66

Repair to damaged culverts and related drainage 0.64

Improvements to bridges, including climate change proofing 23.89

Improvements to culverts, including climate change proofing 0.88

Improvements to Henderson Airport (ring levee and associated drainage) 1.00

Total 4.05 25.77

Source: Ministry of Infrastructure Development.


needs represent the cost of building back better—that is, reconstructing the damaged transport assets to incorporateclimateproofinganddisasterriskreductionmeasures. The time frame for medium-term needs is six months to one year. The BBB option requires a longer time frame for necessary geotechnical, engineering, economic, environmental, and climate change impact analysis.

A preliminary list of land transport infrastructure identifiedfortheBBBoptionisinannex4.

4.1.6 Potential funding optionsThe 2014 work plan for MID includes SI$10 million (US$1.39 million) as a contingency reserve for new emergency repairs in 2014. The MCA can request funding for emergency repair works at Henderson Airport through the NTF. The government will reassess repair priority to include the repair of damage caused by theApril2014flooding.Theestimatedcostoferectinga Bailey bridge at the old Mataniko Bridge site with assistance from the New Zealand government is US$0.69 million. The estimated cost of having the government of Japan construct two bridges across the Mataniko River is estimated to be US$10 million.

The summary of recovery needs, potential funding sources,andthefinancinggapforthetransportsectorisincluded in table 11.

The ADB has offered the government US$200,000 for life-preserving activities through the Asia PacificDisaster Response Fund. MID can ask the MoFT for part of the proceeds from this grant to use for site clearance and

debris removal to ensure access to affected communities awaiting humanitarian assistance.

4.1.7 RecommendationThe following short-term, medium-term, and long-term recovery strategies are recommended.

For short-term recovery (up to 6 months):

■■ Continue rapid restoration of roads, bridges, cul-verts, and the Henderson Airport to basic trafficable condition. Once several contract packages prepared by MID and MCA are approved, private sector con-tractors will commence these works.

Use national private sector consulting resources for construction supervision. Doing so will guard against the pitfalls of implementing a large volume of restoration work over a relatively short period of time, most notably a lack of attention to quality requirements, with a consequent reduced service life of the investment.

■■ When carrying out reconstruction, keep in mind lessons learned from the impact of this flood on transport infrastructure assets. To determine if restoration to pre-flood conditions is sufficient,commence studies of upstream river catchment activities, hydraulic design, alternative pavements, resilient structures accommodating climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction measures.

■■ Commence studies on long-term flood protection measures at Henderson Airport. It is noted that Henderson airport is frequently inundated even by ordinary weather events.

Table 11: Potential Funding Sources and Financing Gap for Transport

Recovery Needs (US$ million)

Potential Funding Sources

Financing Gap (US$ million)Source (government or donors) Funding (US$ million)

Short term 5.84 National Transport Fund 1.39 3.76

Government of New Zealand 0.69

Medium term 4.05 – – 4.05

Long term 24.77 Government of Japan 10.0 14.77

Total 34.66 12.08 22.58

Source: Ministry of Infrastructure Development.

Note: - = negligible.


For medium-term recovery and reconstruction:

■■ Procure contracts and commence reconstruction ac-tivities based on a sensible prioritization of works. This approach ensures that the most critical works aredonefirst.

■■ In conjunction with relevant agencies, complete the resilience-related studies. Hydraulic studies for the Mataniko River and other river basins should be a particular focus. Findings from these studies should be progressively input into the designs for the remaining reconstruction works.

For long-term recovery and reconstruction:

■■ Continue with the reconstruction works, ensuring that supervision and quality control are adequate.

■■ Progressively adopt and mainstream the results of the resilience-related studies into all road design and construction activities.

4.2 Water, sanitation, and drainageBefore the early April flood, there were two majorservice providers of water and sanitation in the Solomon Islands: the Solomon Islands Water Authority, also called Solomon Water, which is a state-owned enterprise; and the providers falling under the Environmental Health Division (EHD) of the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS). The latter includes the Honiara City Council EHD, the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation project (RWSS), and the Guadalcanal Province EHD.

Currently, both Solomon Water and the RWSS are engaged in long-term reform programs. These institutions have limited capacity and are under pressure to meet existing program outputs. Resourcing of additional recovery and reconstruction programs must not divert focus from existing long-term reform programs; on the contrary, every opportunity must be taken to strengthen them.

4.2.1 Rural service providers (RWSS, Guadalcanal Province EHD)

To support the priorities in rural water, sanitation, and hygiene (RWASH), the MHMS and its partners/stakeholders have developed the following:

■■ The RWASH Policy, which was approved by the cab-inet in 2014.

■■ A draft Strategic Plan for RWASH 2015–2020 (still in development)

■■ A Capacity Development Roadmap and Technical Assistance needs assessment

■■ A RWSS Transition Plan 2013–2015

Approximately 80 percent of Solomon Islanders live in rural villages, where 65 percent of residents have access to safe water (35–40 percent functioning water supply systems) and 18 percent of residents have access to improved sanitation facilities (RWSS 2014a). Estimating the impact of the flooding on water andsanitationservicesisdifficult,sincetheonlypre-disasterdata available (from the 2009 census) have to do with access, not level of service or the condition of the assets. But anecdotal evidence suggests that most assets are in poor condition.

According to ISF-UTS (2011), “Diarrhoea remains a leading cause of death in the Solomon Islands, contributing to 7% of mortalities in 2002. The Solomon Islands ranks toward the bottom of Pacific countriesfor all WASH-related health statistics.” (See table 12 for summary health statistics).

Table 12: Summary Health Statistics for Water and Sanitation Sector

Infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 births) 36

WASH-related DALYs (% of all DALYs) 9%

Total WASH-related DALYs (years) 7,826

Total WASH-related deaths per year 197

WASH-related proportion of deaths 8%Source: ISF-UTS 2011, citing World Bank and World Health Organization.

Note: DALY = disability adjusted life year.

4.2.2 Urban service providers (Solomon Water, Honiara City Council EHD)

In August 2010, the Solomon Islands government replaced the SIWA board, and in April 2011, with the support of the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility, an interim generalmanager and interim financial andadministration manager were appointed. The two interim managers prepared a short-term recovery and action


plan to guide urgent reforms to SIWA’s organization, finances, and operations. The plan was presented to the government and development partners and endorsed by the SIWA board in May 2011.

Following a request from the Solomon Islands government, the Australian government agreed to fund the recovery and action plan’s implementation fromSeptember 2011 onward. The improvements under the plan should have been or were concluded in March 2014. In addition, Solomon Water and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade agreed to develop and implement a long-term partnership in two phases: a two-year phase starting in May 2013, based on corporate planning and program design activities in 2012–2013;andafive-yearphasestartingin2015,basedon corporate planning and program design activities in 2014–2015.

Solomon Water was created under the Solomon Islands Water Authority Act (1993) to provide water and sewerage services in urban areas of the country (currently Honiara and three provincial centers). It is subject to the State-Owned Enterprises Act (2007), has a board of directors, and reports to the minister of Mines,EnergyandRuralElectrificationandtheministerof Finance. Solid waste management is limited to the Greater Honiara region and is overseen by Honiara City Council EHD with assistance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade New Zealand.

4.2.3 DrainageNo drainage infrastructure exists outside the transport and agriculture sectors. Damage and loss in the transport and agriculture sectors are addressed in their respective chapters. In light of the flood damage andthe recommendations of the flood risk managementspecialist, drainage—and in particular storm-water management—should be investigated. This is beyond the scope of this assessment, however. A medium- to long-term recommendation would be to develop a drainage master plan for Honiara city.

During our assessment we were unable to obtain information on damage to the drainage infrastructure and tailings dams at the Gold Ridge mine. A team from

United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination has assessed the situation and its environmental impacts, and the assessment has been passed on to the Solomon Islands government.

4.2.4 Description of the damagesItwasdifficulttoascertainthelevelofdamageinruralGuadalcanal Province, due to a lack of pre-disaster data,andresourcingconstraintsfollowingtheflooding.However, data from initial assessments suggest that around 1,000 shallow unprotected wells in the floodplainsofEastGuadalcanalwereinundatedwithsiltand trash and suffered significant damage. There wasalso inundation damage to improved sanitation facilities, but the relatively low coverage of facilities in the country (18 percent) means the extent of damage is quite low.

Assessments also indicated that there has been significant damage to the gravity feed and rainwatercatchment systems. Because these covered only 37 percent of the population before the disaster and were poorly maintained, distinguishing the damage directly attributable to the flooding from already existingdamagehasbeendifficult.Thecostofdamageidentifiedinthisassessmentincludesdirectdamagesuchasflood-induced landslides, scouring of dam foundations and pipelines, reticulation damage, and damages to guttering and water tanks.

The damage to the urban infrastructure was limited, but the effect of this damage on operational capacity and service delivery has been large. Damage to the Kongulai gravity main has required installation of additional cross connections in White River on a temporary basis. Other minor damage to water infrastructure included loss of some 300 revenue meters and destruction of sections of the small-diameter distribution network. The sewerage systemsufferedfromflooding,blockages,andoverflow,and seven sea outfalls were damaged by debris such as logs and timber. Municipal septic tanks operated by Solomon Water have been affected by debris and other solids being washed into them.

4.2.5 Description of the lossesThe majority of loss incurred in rural Guadalcanal Province was due to the extensive use of existing RWSS


warehouse materials, which were used following the flooding and will require replacement. Additionallabor costs during the emergency response, along with additional hygiene promotion and associated materials, were minor contributors to losses.

Impacts on health and broader macroeconomic losses due to asset damage need to be included in the calculationoflosses.Globalcost-benefitanalysisofwatersupply and sanitation interventions conducted by the World Health Organization and others (Hutton, Haller, and Bartram 2007; Hutton and Bartram 2008; Evans, Hutton, and Haller 2004; OECD 2011) estimate that in developing regions, the return of a US$1 investment ranges from US$5 to US$46. Using the low end of the range—US$1 in damage equals US$5 in lost economic output—and assuming that the losses would be incurred until the preexisting level of service was recovered, we estimated that the loss resulting from damage to assets was approximately US$2.2 million.

Solomon Water has incurred additional operating costs because of higher electricity consumption, additional chemical dosing, and additional labor costs. It has also experienced lost revenue from its issuance of flat-ratebills, fromanincreaseinunpaidbills,andfromits supply of water to evacuation centers free of charge. Solomon Water consequently faces higher operational

costs coupled with reduced revenue. This situation will likely continue until November–December 2014. The current budget projections suggest that Solomon Water will incur significant cash flow problems and face considerable financial strain in the coming months. Additional budget support should be sought to address these issues.

Overall total damage and loss for the water and sanitation sector is estimated to be US$4.53 million (see table 13). This is largely driven by the level of loss in the ruralsector,whichisillustratedinfigure5.

Table 13: Damage and Loss Summary for Water and Sanitation (US$ million)

Damage Loss Total Damage & Loss

Rural 0.83 2.71 3.53

Urban 0.30 0.70 1.00

Total 1.13 3.41 4.53

Sources: GP EHD 2014; Solomon Water 2014a, 2014b 2014c; HCC 2014a 2014b; RWSS yearly work programs, 2013.

4.2.6 Government recovery initiativesAt the time of writing, no government initiatives have been confirmed. There have been informal reportsof constituency funds being released and spent in Guadalcanal Province under the Guadalcanal Province

Damage and Loss Damage Loss

Figure 5: Breakdown of Damage and Loss for Water and Sanitation Sector

Sources: GP EHD 2014; Solomon Water2014a, 2014b, 2014c; HCC 2014a 2014b; RWSS yearly work programs, 2013.

Adverse health impacts urban 5%

Solomon Water 17%

Solomon Water 16%

Damage 24%Loss 76%

Honiara City Council 8%

Adverse health impacts rural 61%Rural 75%

Rural 18%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hutton%20G%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=17878562



EHD. There are planned recovery initiatives being developed under the direction of the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) cluster (chaired by director of the EHD) through the emergency response. There have also beenconfirmedreportsofSI$1milliontakenoutoftheRWSS program and redistributed to an emergency fund administered by MHMS.

4.2.7 Proposed recovery planTo help address the needs identified as part of thisassessment, the following recovery and reconstruction activities should be considered. The estimates are based on the best information available at the time of writing, but further scoping work should be done before budgeting for these items.

Short-term recovery. The majority of damage to the rural water supply resulted directly from adoption of poor disaster risk reduction methodologies in the design and construction of infrastructure. For example, the short-term rehabilitation works intended to clean shallow wells will probably not restore the wells to their pre-disaster service level; the wells are poorly designed and upon cleaning they may collapse or become quickly recontaminated. Consideration should be given to decommissioning the existing wells and constructing a limited number of resilient shallow wells to meet basic water demand in the short term. This step could be complemented by replacement of all the damaged wells in the medium to long term.

Table 14 summarizes short-term needs in the water and sanitation sector.

Sanitation facilities also need to be upgraded. However, under the Solomon Islands RWASH Policy, no

subsidy can be applied to community sanitation. With the vast majority of the rural population practicing open defecation, accomplishing behavior change in sanitation is of paramount importance. New and innovative approaches to behavior change, such as community-led total sanitation (CLTS) or participatory hygiene and sanitation transformation, should be tried. There should be a strong push for CLTS programming in particular as a means of encouraging behavior that will improve sanitation.

All emergency repairs have been completed by Solomon Water in Honiara. Additional short-term recovery and rehabilitation plans have already been budgeted and planned for under existing programs.

Medium- to long-term recovery. Medium- to long-term recovery plans need to be underpinned by a detailed review of assessments. A gap analysis needs to be completed using existing data, and additional assessments then undertaken to address the gaps identified.Atthatpointadetailedmedium-tolong-termreconstruction program should be developed.

Initial assessments have highlighted the lack of detailed baseline data and planning capacity for RWSS. Addressingthesedeficitsisastrategicrecommendationof the draft Strategic Plan for RWASH 2015–2020.

The initial damage assessments show that after basic access is restored, RWSS will need to complete installation of additional protected wells with SOLMARK hand pumps. This strategy is recommended under the “build back better” response; simply replacing the unprotected wells with more unprotected wells is no longer feasible. Gravity and rainwater harvesting systems will also need to be rehabilitated using BBB principles. A number of

Table 14: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Water and Sanitation Sector

Activity Needs (US$ million)

Rehabilitation of hand-dug wells damaged during the flooding 0.13

Development and dissemination of basic hygiene messages to affected rural communities and around Honiara 0.07

Additional water quality treatment, monitoring, and control 0.05

Replenishment of RWSS warehouse 0.49

Total 0.74Source: Solomon Islands Government 2014.

Note: All short-term recovery needs shown here are for rural areas.


new population centers—created as people have moved toareaslesspronetofloods—willneednewwaterandsanitation systems. An additional recommendation to reduce disaster risk, one that has already received partial donor funding, is the installation of a limited number of deep bores and solar pumps in high-risk communities.

Because the WASH sector has limited capacity, it will need support to assist with the implementation of the additional recovery and reconstruction activities. Asignificantlyhigherimplementationcostisexpectedif additional technical capacity needs to be mobilized. At present, UNICEF is well positioned to support, and co-lead with, the RWSS/EHD in the overall emergency response. Through its partners, UNICEF can also in contribute to delivery of the recovery plan in Guadalcanal Province and in the peri-urban areas in Honiara. Solomon Water will continue to extend the maintenance and repairs in Honiara.

The flood has identified a number of operationaland reliability constraints in the current Solomon Water distribution network. A gravity main duplication (estimated at US$1.75 million) has been proposed for the Kongulai water supply system; this would provide much-neededoperationalresilience.Thefloodhasalsohighlighted the poor design and limited capacity of the existing sewage network and the need for Solomon Water to look at developing plans for a third independent water source.

Medium- to long-term recovery needs are summarized in table 15.

4.2.8 Potential funding optionsPotential funding sources for short-, medium-, and long-term activities in the water and sanitation sector are shown in table 16.

Table 15: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Water and Sanitation Sector

Activity Needs (US$ million)Rural Drilling of boreholes in affected urban and rural communities 0.14Repair of affected piped water supplies and rainwater harvesting systems in Guadalcanal Province 0.31Supply of WASH services to new population centers 0.10Rehabilitation of hand-dug shallow wells using BBB approach 1.92Total $2.47Urban Duplication of Kongulai gravity main 1.75Development of municipal wastewater collection and treatment master plan 0.08Development of water supply master plan 0.08Development of Honiara drainage master plan 0.11Total 2.02Grand total 4.49

Sources: Solomon Islands Government 2014; Solomon Water 2013, 2014b.

Table 16: Potential Funding Sources for Water and Sanitation Sector


Potential Funding Sources Financing Gap

(US$ million)Source (government or donors)Amount

(US$ million)

Short Term $0.74World Vision Solomon Islands 0.02

0.44Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia (warehouse losses) 0.28

Medium-Long Term $4.49 World Vision Solomon Islands 0.08 4.41Total $5.23 0.37 4.85

Sources: Solomon Islands Government 2014; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia.


4.3 AgricultureOver 80 percent of Solomon Islanders live in rural areas. The agriculture, forestry, and fishery sector accountedfor a total of 35.3 percent of GDP in the Solomon Islands in 2013, with 14.5 percent for agriculture (crops and livestock), 15 percent for forestry, and 5.8 percent for fishery.1

Most rural residents derive their livelihoods from subsistence agriculture and small-scale income-generating activities, particularly the export of cash crops (coconut, oil palm, cocoa), traditional cash crops (sweet potato, cassava, banana, taro, yam, beans, cabbage), and other fresh products. The 2009 Population and Housing Census (Solomon Islands National Statistics Office2009) indicates that 89 percent of all Solomon Islands households grow some of their own food; among rural residents the share is 96 percent.

Household gardening in rural areas is carried out on a shifting cultivation basis, generally using the slash and burn method, where an area is cultivated for a short period before being left fallow to allow natural regeneration. Increasing population pressure has combined with changes in crops, cropping methods, land use, and lifestyle to intensify the use of garden land areas on to more mountainous terrain. This trend has in turn increased soil erosion, landslides, and susceptibility tofloods.

Livestock has a significant share in socioeconomicdevelopment in the Solomon Islands. Around 90 percent

of households keep between one and five pigs andbetween 10 and 12 scavenging chickens. Income from the sale of surplus production remains important for broader economic and social purposes. In the peri-urban Honiara area, livestock is reared in a more structured, formal system, but elsewhere in Guadalcanal Province, livestock is reared on unimproved, poorly managed pastures, fallow land, and crop residues. Table 17 below presents information on pre-disaster livestock in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City.

Solomon Islands fisheries include subsistence,semi-commercial,andcommercialfisheries,withmostactivity in the first two categories, especially amongrural communities. About 60 percent of Solomon Islanders are involved in fishing activities for theirownconsumption,andabouthalfofthesealsosellfish.According to the 2009 Population and Housing Census (SolomonIslandsNationalStatisticsOffice2009),onlyabout 8 percent of the population In Honiara is involved infishingactivities.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MAL) has numerous programs and projects devoted to helping smallholders; these take intoconsiderationthesmallholders’needs,motivations,capabilities, risks, and resources, as well as the effect of these factors on the production and marketing of products or their use within the household.

In order to address the national development priorities embodied in these programs and projects,

Table 17: Pre-disaster Livestock in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City

Pre-disaster stock Guadalcanal Honiara Total

Cattle, commercial 1,200 0 1,200

Cattle, smallholder 110 0 110

Poultry broiler, smallholder 7,300 7.700 15,000

Poultry layer, commercial 10,000 3,900 13,900

Poultry layer, smallholder 1,900 1,900 3,800

Pigs, commercial 900 2,000 2,900

Pigs, smallholder 12,670 460 13,130Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Department of Livestock and Veterinary Service.

1 Figures are from the World Bank and the Central Bank of the Solomon Islands.


the government, through MAL, established numerous strategic activities to be implemented during the period 2010–2015. These activities included the following:

■■ Development of an oil palm plantation, with a tar-get of developing 40,000 hectares over 10 years

■■ Establishment by 2020 of 3,000 hectares of rice projectsacrossthecountry’snineprovinces

■■ Rehabilitation and development of cocoa and coco-nut plantations

■■ Establishment of small livestock projects

■■ Revival of the cattle industry

■■ Development of exotic and indigenous crops, fruits, and nuts

4.3.1 Description of the damagesCrops. The total damage to the crop subsector was assessed at SI$5.47 million (US$750,000). Most of the damage involved destruction of or damages to cocoa and copra driers and rural roads. Loss of livelihood assets such as farming tools was also considerable.

Livestock. Thefloodsdirectlyimpactedthelivestocksubsector, with damage estimated at SI$3.07 million (US$420,000).Thereweresignificantlossesofanimals,mostly pigs (22 percent lost) and poultry (12 percent lost), along with damage to fences, chicken sheds (41 totally or partially damaged in Guadalcanal, 13 in Honiara), and pig structures (64 totally or partially damaged in Guadalcanal, 4 in Honiara).

Table 18 presents the number of poultry and pigs washedawaybytheflashfloodsinGuadalcanalProvinceand Honiara City.

Figure 6: Damage to Livestock and Structures in Guadalcanal Province (as percentage of damage in sector)

Source: BasedonofficialSolomonIslandgovernmentdata.

Figure 7: Damage to Livestock and Structures in Honiara (as percentage of damage in sector)

Source: BasedonofficialSolomonIslandgovernmentdata.

Fisheries. The estimate of damage in the fisherysubsectorwasSI$2.19million (US$300,000).The flashfloodsimpactedfishingcommunitieslivingclosetomainrivers in Honiara City (Mataniko and Lungga Rivers) andEastandWestGuadalcanal.Damage in the fisherysubsectormostlyinvolvedthelossoffishingequipment,canoes, and a few boats.

Table 18: Number of Livestock Lost in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City

Guadalcanal Honiara Total

Poultry broiler, smallholder 1,110 864 1,974

Poultry layer, commercial 1,520 438 1,958

Poultry layer, smallholder 289 213 502

Pigs, commercial 194 438 632

Pigs, smallholder 2,725 101 2,826Source: MAL initial rapid assessment.

Pigs 79%

Pigs 67%

Poultry layer 14%

Sheds 4% Poultry boiler3%

Sheds 9%

Poultry boiler7%

Poultry layer 17%


4.3.2 Description of the lossesCrops. The estimated loss to the crop subsector was SI$112.69million (US$15.43million). The flash floodscaused significant damage to food gardens (affectingmostly kumara, cassava, taro, pana, and vegetables), export crops (cocoa, copra, palm oil), and fruit trees (banana). In total, 1,225 households in Honiara City and 7,335 households in Guadalcanal Province were directly affected. The numbers of households suffering total or partialdamagestotheirfoodcropsareshowninfigure8.

An estimation of loss was not part of the initial damage assessment. The loss in production and income has been assessed and estimated for the most affected crops (kumara, cassava, taro, pana, vegetables, cocoa, copra, and palm oil), taking into account the percentage of the crop damaged, the average area cultivated for each crop, the yield, and the farm gate price. A seasonal crop calendar (see annex 5) was developed in order to cross-referencetheaccuracyofthefindingsintermsofmagnitude of production losses. The estimation of losses also included the cost for replanting vegetables. The cost for replanting root crops was not considered because most farmers will procure planting material at no cost (from undamaged crops, from neighbors, etc.).

In terms of economic loss, cassava accounted for 31 percent of total loss and kumara accounted for 28 percent, followed by taro (23 percent) and oil palm (11 percent). Details of distribution of loss in the crop subsectorareshowninfigure9.

Figure 9: Distribution of Loss in the Crop Subsector

Source: EstimatesbasedonofficialSolomonIslandgovernmentdata.

Livestock. The estimated loss to the livestock subsector was SI$9.89 million (US$1.35 million). Loss in production occurred mainly in the poultry and pig sectors. Farmers reported loss of animal feedstock as well as loss of livestock.

483

pana

Honiara

25382

taro

Honiara

24 131

694

kumara

Honiara

174 13516

5,372

kumara

Guadalcanal

1,451

33288

844

cassava

Honiara

19815104

4,937

cassava

Guadalcanal

1,471

41

762

3,112

veg

Guadalcanal

995672552

3,594

taro

Guadalcanal

1,243

375568

3,207

pana

Guadalcanal

916

564753

392

veg

Honiara

74 088

■ # HH with 100% damaged ■ # HH with 75% damaged ■ # HH with 50% damaged ■ # HH with 25% damaged

Figure 8: Number of Households Sustaining Damage to Food Gardens

Source: MAL initial rapid assessment.

Kumara 28%

Oil palm 11%

Cassava 31%Vegetables 4%

Taro 23%

Pana 1%Cocoa 1%Copra 1%


Livestock is an important source of income for Honiara peri-urban households and for households in Guadalcanal Province. The loss of animals therefore has a direct economic impact because it means loss of revenue from the selling of eggs, pork, and chicken meat; it also means loss of production of offspring (especially pigs) for sale asweaners and finishers. Figure10 illustratesthe losses in production (SI$) in Guadalcanal Province and Honiara City.

Figure 10: Loss in Livestock Production, by Commodity (SI$)

Fisheries. TheestimatedlosstothefisherysubsectorwasSB$1.1million(US$0.154million).Thelossoffishingequipment, canoes, and boats, along with reduced access to fishing grounds due to debris and sedimentation,resulted in reduction of daily catch.

Social dimension.Theimpactofthefloodingontheagriculture sector in turn affected the availability and price of food. Recent market monitoring has shown a distinct decrease in the availability of fresh vegetables as well as an increase in their price—one that will likely have secondary impacts on the food security of a large portion of the population in Honiara and other areas of Guadalcanal Province. The majority of economically active women are engaged in agriculture; although their overall participation in cash generation is small, any disruption to agricultural activities is likely to have a disproportionate effect on women’s earningcapacities.

4.3.3 Damage and loss summaryOf the total damage and loss for the three subsectors, 88 percent is attributable to crops, 10 percent to livestock, and2percent to fishery (figure11,panela).The totaleffect to the sector amounts to SI$134.42 million (US$18.41 million), of which SI$10.73 million (US$1.50 million)—8 percent—is damage and SI$123.70 million (US$16.94 million)—92 percent—is loss (figure 11,panel b). Of the total effect, 99.92 percent accrues to the private sector and 0.08 percent to the public sector.

Figure 11: Damage and Losses in the Agriculture Sector

a. Distribution of damage and loss in total effect

b. Share of damage and loss, by subsector

Sources: MAL; Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources.

Table 19: Damage and Loss by Subsector (US$ million)

Damage Losses Total

Crops 0.75 15.43 16.18

Livestock 0.42 1.35 1.77

Fisheries 0.30 0.15 0.45

Total 1.47 16.83 18.20Sources: MAL; Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources.

Honira

Loss

in p

rodu

ction

(SB$

mill

ion)

Guadalcanal

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

■ pig ■ poultry

Losses 92%

Damage 8%

Crops 88%

Livestock 10%

Fishery 2%


The assessment made clear that, with lost income and major food access issues, many small farmers will not be able to cope with the disaster. Access to high-quality agricultural inputs such as seeds should be immediately facilitated, and animal restocking and rehabilitation of the damaged infrastructure should be supported.

4.3.4 Government recovery initiativesAlthough the details still need to be further developed, MAL is likely to support disaster recovery activities by drawing on funds available in recurrent budgets and/or redirecting development budget funds.

4.3.5 Proposed recovery planFarmers affected by the flash floods need to besupported to facilitate a quicker recovery and to help them reestablish their normal livelihoods. The longer

it takes to establish this support, the longer it will take for the Solomon Islands to attain full economic recovery. Table 20 and table 21 present the different activities to be undertaken in order to promote recovery in the short term as well as the medium to long term. The tables also seek to identify where government initiatives have already been implemented and where donor partner resources have been made available or may be necessary. Analysis suggests that the sum of SI$21.18 million (US$2.90 million) may be required for recovery and SI$20.23 million (US$2.77 million) for reconstruction.

4.3.6 Potential funding optionsTable 22 shows potential funding sources for both short-term and medium- to long-term activities in the agriculture sector.

Table 20: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Agriculture

ActivityNeeds

(US$ million)

Provide seeds, seedlings, suckers, cuttings, and other agricultural inputs for replanting of crops 1.90

Provide cash for work activities for community-level cleaning to enable affected families to meet food needs, purchase equipment, and/or rebuild animal housing and restock

1.00

Total 2.90

Sources: Livelihoods cluster; MAL.

Table 21: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Agriculture

ActivityNeeds

(US$ million)

CROPS

Support promotion of resilient agriculture techniques (intercropping, fruit tree planting, integrated farming systems using permaculture technique); support community nurseries; improve resilience to floods (improve drainage systems, provide training in disaster risk reduction techniques, including traditional storage techniques)

1.60

Support MAL and Ministry of Fisheries and Marines Resources in developing damage and loss needs assessment tools, including development of accurate baseline information

0.01

LIVESTOCK

Support restocking. Rehabilitate livestock structure with BBB techniques. Restore water facilities. Designate an area where household chickens and pigs can be safely evacuated during heavy floods. Ensure that community-level disaster plans factor in provisions for the suitable evacuation of livestock

0.60

Boost sustainable production through investing in both research and local capacity building by introducing lower cost, locally available ingredients into commercial feeds as the strategy to improve profit margins

0.05

FISHERY

Provide fishing gear and equipment 0.24

Promote community fisheries–based management 0.27

Total 2.77

Sources: Livelihoods cluster; MAL; Solomon Islands Government 2014.

Farmers affected by the flash floods need to be supported to facilitate a quicker recovery and to help them reestablish their normal livelihoods. The longer it takes to establish this support, the longer it will take for the Solomon Islands to attain full economic recovery.

Flooded plantations, Guadalcanal plains. Photo: credit pending


Table 22: Potential Funding Options for Agriculture

Recovery Needs

(US$ million)

Potential Funding Sources Financing Gap

(US$ million)Source (government or donors) US$ million

Short term 2.90 MAL; ILO; DFAT; KGA; SEB; New Zealand MFAT; WSPA; ECHO 0.92 1.98

Medium- to long- term 2.77 Solomon Islands government; RDP/World Bank; EU; FAO, TTM/ROC, DFAT, New Zealand MFAT 0.21 2.56

Total 5.67 Solomon Islands government; PRRP; ILO,UNDP 1.13 4.54

Sources: Livelihoods cluster; MAL.

Note: ILO = International Labour Organization; DFAT = Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; KGA = Kastom Gaden Association; SEB = Solo Enviro Beautification;MFAT=MinistryofForeignAffairsandTrade;WSPA=WorldSocietyfortheProtectionofAnimals;ECHO=EuropeanCommunityHu-manitarianOffice;RDP=RuralDevelopmentProgram;EU=EuropeanUnion;FAO=FoodandAgricultureOrganization;TTM/ROC=;PRRP=PacificRiskResilience Program; UNDP = United Nations Development Programme.

4.4 HousingHousing infrastructure in the Solomon Islands is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, as was demonstrated by theextensivedamageinflictedduringthe2014floodingdisaster. According to the 2009 Population and Housing Census(SolomonIslandsNationalStatisticsOffice2009),only 21 percent of houses in Honiara and 8 percent of houses in Guadalcanal are constructed with a concrete, cement, or brick floor, while the remaining houseshavefloorsofcorrugatediron,timber,ortraditionalormakeshift materials, making them more susceptible to flooding damage. The flooding along the MatanikoRiver was so destructive, however, that some houses constructed with cement brick walls were also badly damaged or destroyed.

The Solomon Islands National Building Code (Solomon Islands Government 1990) sets standards for building construction in the Solomon Islands, although in practice this standard is applied only to permanent structures. Buildings constructed of traditional materials are not built to any regulated standards and tend to be farlessresilienttonaturalhazardssuchasfloodingandcyclones.

Approximately 22 percent of houses in Honiara and 2 percent of houses in Guadalcanal Province are privately rented (Solomon Islands Government 2009). Rents are typically in the range of around SI$1,500 to SI$5,000 per month (approximately US$200 to US$700), depending on various factors but primarily the method of construction.

The Solomon Islands government provides housing for government employees, or alternatively contributes toward rental of private houses for employees.

4.4.1 Description of the damagesThe Solomon Islands National Emergency Operations Centre (2014) states that the scope of the disaster is limited to Guadalcanal Island, and in particular those areas along the major river systems, the Guadalcanal Plains, and Northwest Guadalcanal. Thus assessments of housing damage have been or are intended to be limited to Honiara and to 11 affected wards of Guadalcanal Province.

Assessments carried out by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey (MLHS) in Honiara and by World Vision International and Solomon Islands Red Cross in Guadalcanal Province show that the flooding hasirreparably damaged or completely destroyed 243 housesinHoniara(2.7percentofthecity’stotalhousingstock), and around 432 houses in Guadalcanal Province (3.6 percent of the total housing stock across 11 affected wards, and 2.5 percent of the total housing stock in the province). The Honiara assessment is complete, and the Guadalcanalfigureisextrapolatedfromtheassessmentscarried out in six wards to date.

The Honiara assessment shows that damage to houses was concentrated on the banks of the Mataniko River, and that most of these houses were entirely destroyed rather than partially damaged. In Guadalcanal Province, villages situated near major rivers on the


Guadalcanal Plains were the most affected, and the extent of damage was more varied than in Honiara. Damage at Burns Creek was minimal; only 17 of 712 assessed houses were destroyed.

A sample of the Honiara assessments shows that dwellings constructed of traditional materials comprised approximately 49 percent of the houses that were destroyed or suffered irreparable damage. This can be attributed to the lesser resiliency of traditional construction, as well as the tendency of squatters to build inexpensive temporary structures illegally on land that had not been subdivided for residential use, such as at Koa Hill adjacent to the Mataniko River. A total of eight government houses (allocated to Honiara City Council employees) constructed of permanent materials were completely destroyed in Honiara.

Figure 12: Location of Houses at Koa Hill Destroyed by Flooding

Sources:MinistryofLands,HousingandSurvey;SecretariatofthePacificCommunity.

Note: Red dots indicate the location of houses.

Estimates of the cost of damage to the housing sector in Guadalcanal Province are based on assessments to date.Theyarealsoinformedbycensusfiguresshowingthat approximately 70 percent of houses in Guadalcanal are constructed mainly of traditional materials, with the remainder constructed of more permanent materials (Solomon Islands Government 2009).

Though parts of Guadalcanal were not yet assessed at the time of writing, we project that in total, around 675 houses have been completely destroyed, 3,726 have suffered partial (repairable) damage, and 7,235 houses have suffered minimal or no damage.

4.4.2 Description of the lossesPrivately rented houses account for 22.3 percent of houses in Honiara and 1.9 percent of houses in Guadalcanal (Solomon Islands Government 2009). A sample of the Honiara assessments shows that about one in four affected houses was privately rented, roughlymatchingthecitywidefigure.Rentalvaluesvaryaccording to the construction materials, with monthly rentals around SI$2,000 (approximately US$275) for a house built of traditional materials, and around SI$4,000 (approximately US$550) for a house built of permanent materials. Assuming that houses that have been destroyed require an average of 18 months to reconstruct, and partially damaged houses require an average of 3 months to repair, the total losses resulting from loss of rental income will be approximately SI$7.8 million (US$1,066,000).

The Humanitarian Action Plan (Solomon Islands Government 2014) proposes that transitional shelter be provided for people whose houses have been destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. Based on the assessment carried out by MLHS in Honiara, the National Disaster Management Office estimates that there could bea need for approximately 260 transitional shelters (243 destroyed houses in Honiara, plus 17 destroyed houses at Burns Creek, which adjoins the Honiara City boundary).TheNDMOhasidentifiedlandownedbytheSolomon Islands National University in Honiara—used forthe2012FestivalofPacificArts(andstill identifiedas “FOPA”)—as a location for the shelters. The extent to which the remaining evacuation centers will also need to serve as transitional shelter is yet to be determined. The HAP estimates the cost of this transitional shelter project to be SI$6 million (US$822,000).

Damage and loss in the housing sector is summarized in table 23.

4.4.3 Government recovery initiativesThe MLHS has prepared a subdivision plan for an area known informally as April Hill, and it will shortly commence surveying and pegging for 264 urban lots, each with an area of at least 400m2. These lots are to be allocated to people who lost their houses along the Mataniko River (so up to 260 lots may be required). The


precise method of allocation will be determined either by the commissioner of lands or by a newly appointed Land Board.

4.4.4 Proposed recovery planTo help address the needs identified as part of thisassessment, the following recovery and reconstruction activities should be considered. The estimates are based on the best available information available at the time of writing, but further scoping work should be done to before budgeting for these items.

■■ Short-term recovery

The NDMO is currently providing shelter for internally displaced persons in evacuation centers in Honiara and Guadalcanal Province, and further assistance is being provided by aid donors and nongovernmental organizations. NDMO is coordinating a “repatriation” program, which assists people in voluntarily returning either to their home in Honiara (if repairable) or to their province of origin. The HAP includes a program to repair and upgrade repairable houses in Honiara and to repair and reconstruct houses in Guadalcanal; Guadalcanal residents have alternative customary land upon which to resettle, but Honiara residents have limited or no access to alternative land, and are therefore considered as part of a separate resettlement program. Funding to support the repair/reconstructionprogramhasyettobeidentified.

NDMO expects that there may be around 1,000 to 2,000 people remaining in evacuation centers after the repatriation process, comprising Honiara residents who lost their homes and do not wish to return to their home province. These people will be provided with transitional shelter at the FOPA site; with an area of approximately

67,000m2, the site can house around 2,000 people in transitional shelters. Structures used during the 2012 FOPA are still intact and have been used for immediate shelter needs. The Solomon Islands government will assess the suitability of these structures for transitional shelter.

Short-term recovery needs in the housing sector are summarized in table 24.

Table 24: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Housing

ActivityNeeds

(US$ million)

Implementation of a house repair and upgrade program 1.8

Provision of transitional shelter 0.82

Total 2.00

Source: Solomon Islands Government 2014.

■■ Medium- to long-term recovery

MLHS is preparing to subdivide and develop an area of land within the Honiara City boundary for the purpose of allocating land parcels to Honiara-based internally displaced persons. The preliminary subdivision plan includes 264 residential lots, which is sufficient tomeet the anticipated needs. The precise layout of the subdivisionneedstoreflectconstraintssuchasexposureto flood and landslide hazards; additional assessmentmay be required to determine this exposure. Early indications suggest that the indicative costs for the development of these plots—including the construction of roads and the servicing costs for water, electricity, housing, and sanitation—are approximately SI$64 million (US$8.7 million).

Table 23: Damage and Loss Summary for Housing

Damage (US$ million)

Losses (US$ million)

Total (US$ million)

Fully destroyed houses 10.06 0.42 10.48

Partially damaged houses 14.47 0.35 14.83

Minimally damaged houses 4.67 – 4.67

Total 29.20 0.78 29.98

Sources: MLHS; Solomon Islands Red Cross; World Vision International; selected building quotes.Note: – = negligible.


Given the high-level decisions that need to be made before any recovery program can be effectively designed, it has not been possible to include the costs in this report. At this stage it is unknown who will fund any resettlement and reconstruction activities or if repatriation of households will occur.

4.4.5 Potential funding optionsThe United Nations Development Programme will potentially provide up to US$150,000 toward the cost of transitional shelters at FOPA. No donors have yet been identifiedtofundahouserepairandupgradeprogram.

MLHS has a budget of SI$6 million (US$822,000) specifically for infrastructure costs associated withnew subdivisions. The MLHS permanent secretary has allocated this Site Development Fund to be used at April Hill.2 This will go some way toward paying for the infrastructurecostsbutwill still leaveasignificantshortfall, particularly in light of the cost of new houses.

4.5 Health and Education4.5.1 HealthA major priority for the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, and the driving force behind the development of health facilities in the Solomon Islands, is the Universal Health Coverage and Role Delineation Policy. This policy includes the upgrading of existing health facilities but also the establishment of new health clinics in selected areas.

Honiara and Guadalcanal Province—the areas that are the focus of this post-disaster rapid assessment—are home to 52 health facilities. Guadalcanal Province has 43 open health facilities and one hospital (Good Samaritan). Of the non-hospital facilities, 13 are nurse aid posts, 24 are rural health clinics, and 6 are area health centers. In Honiara, there are 8 clinics (thought to be in poor conditionbeforetheflooding)andtheNationalReferralHospital.

4.5.2 EducationThe Solomon Islands education sector is currently guided by the 2013–2015 National Education Action Plan,

which in turn is organized around the five subsectorsof the education system (early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, technical and vocational training, and tertiary education). The governments of New Zealand and Australia have actively supported the education sector over the past years through the joint Education Sector Support Program. The program provides budget support to mutually agreed-on targeted areas (e.g., teacher development, infrastructure, inspectorate). Despite ongoing support, however, the ministry has in recent years faced challenges in its capacity to expend existing resources, particularly on the development side. This difficulty has been due inpart to limited human resources, to a lack of baseline data relating to the condition of existing assets (both buildings and curricula), and to delays in procurement processes.

4.5.3 Sector impactsThis assessment of sector impacts is based on the Australian Civil Corps Education & Health Assessment of April 24, 2014, and on assessment information provided by the Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (MEHRD) and the MHMS. At the time of writing, further assessments were under way, so it should be understood that this account does not provide a complete picture of damaged schools and health clinics.

4.5.4 Description of the damagesHealth clinics. In total eight health clinics suffered negativeimpactsfromthefloods:threeinHoniaraCityCouncil and three in Guadalcanal Province.

No clinics were structurally damaged, and none needs to be relocated or completely reconstructed as a resultofthefloods.ThreefacilitiesinHoniara(Mataniko Area Health Center, White River Rural Health Clinic, and Pikinini Area Health Center) sustained varying levels of inundation and architectural damage to internal partition wall linings, electrical outlets, entrance doors, hollow core doors, external wall cladding, external landscaping, and septic tanks. The engineers who evaluated the facility believe that the clinics can commence operations while work proceeds. The Pikinini Area Health Center

2 Based on personal communication with Stanley Waleanisia, May 5, 2014.


sustained similar types of damages, though these were more severe, and repair work is required before the clinic can operate effectively. A detailed breakdown of damage to health facilities is available in annex 6.

Three clinics in Guadalcanal (Selwyn Nurse Aid Post, Tinaghulu Nurse Aid Post, and New Tenabuti Rural Health Clinic) have sustained minor damage consequent to inundation of the premises; they will neednewfloorsandrepairs to inner lower walls, and some equipment and medical supplies will need to be replaced. Prior to the flooding, the quality and quantity of equipment of these facilities was already considered to be at a low level.

Education. According to the information collected to date, the damage reported to schools was minimal and requires only minor repairs. A full list of schools with reported damage is provided in annex 7. The key tasks to be carried out are repairs to school buildings, the pumping out of septic tanks, and the replenishment of curricular materials and furniture. It should be noted that there was no pre-disaster information on the condition of school infrastructure, which makes it difficulttoascertainthedamagedirectlyattributabletothe disaster.

4.5.5 Description of the lossesHealth. The Ministry of Public Service circular stipulated that staff working in the aftermath of the floodingwould receive an extra allowance of SI$150 (US$20) per weekday and SI$300 (US$41) for weekends and public holidays. These amounts have been used as a proxy to estimate the level of loss incurred from the additional work required, but the final number of staffmemberswhowillbereceivingthisallowanceisnotyetfinal.Thetotal loss for the health sector is estimated at SI$4.7 million (or US$649,000); losses are shown disaggregated bypercentageinfigure13.

The impact on the National Environmental Health Division, which is part of the MHMS, has not been included here because water and sanitation have been assessed separately. It will be important to allocate National Environmental Health Division losses to the MHMS budget.

Figure 13: Health Losses by Source of Budget

Source: MEHRD.

Of the total damage, 36 percent is under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Division, 29 percent is under the National Reproductive & Child Health Division, 13 percent is under the National Referral Hospital, and the remaining 22 percent is under various MHMS national divisions.

Guadalcanal Province has been using its provincial health recurrent budget, which is funded by MHMS grants and Health Sector Support Programme grants, to conduct its emergency response throughout the province. It will do so until the end of May, so the weekly average of up-to-date costs is a forecast impact on their budget. The totalamountexpectedtobespentforthefloodisSI$1.2million (US$164,484), representing 8 percent of the total grants for Guadalcanal Province for 2014 (total grants are equal to SI$14.1 million or US$57,000). This amount includes all expenses related to the flood, includingmostly the per diems for staff working hard on the relief efforts (SI$150 per weekday and SI$300 for per day on weekends and public holidays), goods, equipment, rations, fuel, catering for the disaster team, and new computers for the team. The amount also includes the lossofoneambulance(washedawaybyflashfloods)andthe resulting interruption in service delivery.

Replacement of damaged stock and supplies for National Medical Store mobile teams is estimated at SI$168,311 (US$23,049). Overseas procurement, along with orders of new stock to replace what was lost and to meet increased needs arising from disease outbreaks, comes to SI$1.5 million (US$205,520). The replacement stock is to replenish supplies in Honiara City Council and

Losses 92%

Guadalcanal Province 25%

MHMS 29%

National Medical Stores 35%

Honiara City Council 11%


Guadalcanal Province clinics. Stocks in White River and Mataniko clinics have been replaced. The National Medical Store supply has returned to its pre-disaster level, but it is ready to accommodate spikes in usage arising from outbreaks of diarrhea, dengue, and other diseases.

Honiara City Council will spend SI$490,000 (US$67,000) of its recurrent budget (which is funded through MHMS and the Health Sector Support Programme)asaresultofthefloods.

Three Ministry of Health and Medical Services di-visionswereaffectedbythefloods:(i)theNationalVec-tor Borne Disease Control division, which had to use its stock of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and chemi-cals (which will have to be replaced) and order additional quantities; (ii) the National Reproductive and Child Health division, which will have to conduct an additional vacci-nation campaign; and (iii) the National Referral Hospital, which had to use its budget for MEOC and hospital expens-es.Inaddition,variousdivisions’budgetswereaffectedbythe relief efforts. The total amount for losses for the MHMS is SI$1.4 million (US$192,000).

Education. The losses in the education sector have been derived by establishing a cost for the additional logistical support required to access the schools, overtime of the staff, and the school fees that were waived via the provision of school grants. Total loss for the sector is estimated at SI$888,000 (US$122,000).

4.5.6 Damage and loss summaryTable 25 summarizes damage and losses in the health and education sectors.

Table 25: Damage and Losses in Health and Education (US$ million)

Damage Losses Total

Public schools 1.24 0.10 1.24

Health facilities 0.19 0.65 0.80

Total 1.29 0.75 2.04Source: EstimatesbasedonofficialSolomonIslandsgovernmentdata.

4.5.7 Government recovery initiativesHealth. In the aftermath of the flooding, MHMS, withthe support of its cluster partners, has been actively

responding to health sector needs, including preventative and curative services and disease surveillance. In response to the crisis, MHMS has strengthened its teams for risk communication, nutrition and food safety, WASH, and health cluster coordination.

A number of assessments, both rapid and ongoing, have been conducted to monitor health sector needs following the flooding. MHMS conducted an initialrapid assessment and is leading assessments of health facilities, with data analysis ongoing. People living in affected communities in Guadalcanal Province (currently 64communitiesidentified)—specificallythecatchmentarea of the 21 affected health facilities—are at risk. The population of the catchment areas of the three health facilities in Honiara City Council, including affected communities in outer areas of Honiara, are also at risk.

Education. Community clean-up activities have helped to repair some of the damage and remove debris, and children were able to return to school following the Easter holiday. The MEHRD is conducting further assessments to determine the full extent of damage and the financial costof replacing, repairing, and restoringessential services, resources, and physical environments in the affected schools. It has engaged an engineering company to begin this process.

4.5.8 Proposed recovery planTo help address the needs identified as part of thisassessment, the following recovery and reconstruction activities should be considered. The estimates are based on the best available information at the time of writing, but further scoping work should be done before budgeting for these items,

■■ Short-term recovery

The short-term recovery of the health and education sec-tors requires the implementation of minor repair work. It is understood that for both MHMS and MEHRD, this work is already under way, and that the education sector has been able to leverage limited support via the Humanitarian Ac-tion Plan. The works suggested here focus on the minor re-pairs to school buildings, pumping out of septic tanks, and drainage; similar works are suggested for the health cen-ters. Needs are summarized in table 26.


Table 26: Short-Term Recovery Needs for Health and Education

ActivityNeeds

(US$ million)

Schools

Minor repair of flood damage 0.69

Health Clinics

Minor repair of flood damage 0.15

Recuperation of losses 0.65

Total 1.49

■■ Medium- to long-term recovery

Health. The medium-term recovery activities were extracted from the HAP health section (excluding those that were considered part of short-term recovery and were undertaken by Guadalcanal Province, NHR, Honiara City Council, and various nongovernmental organizations, such as repairs to affected facilities, provision of health and nutrition services, supplementary immunization program, safe food handling to prevent food-borne diseases, provision of sexual reproductive health services, and provision of mental health and psychosocial services to affected communities ).

Any medium- to long-term recovery efforts will need furtherassessmentoftheflood’seffectonthehealthofthe Solomon Islands population (for example, relating to nutrition and reproductive and child health). The referral system linking different facilities has been affected, and while it seems to be getting back on track, the disruption might have medium- or long-term consequences for the health sector.

In terms of medium- to long-term recovery, the floodshaveonceagainhighlightedtheprecariousstateofsome of the health facilities in Honiara and Guadalcanal Province.Long-termeffortsto improve infrastructure’sresilience to natural hazards will need to be based on the MHMS Role Delineation Policy. Major infrastructure workhasalreadybeenidentifiedattheNationalReferralHospital in Honiara, which has had to respond to natural hazard events by moving the pediatric, antenatal, gynecology, and postnatal wards to higher ground).

Education. The medium to long term activities identified for the education sector involve repairingthe schools to their pre-disaster state. The activities identified are expected to take a longer time thanthose listed in table 27 and to involve activities such as repairs to access roads and the drainage system. The proposed build back better solution includes relocating fourschoolstositesnotpronetofloodingandcarryingoutvarious flood-proofingmeasures, suchaselevatingpower points. Activities are summarized in table 27.

4.5.9 Potential funding optionsHealth. In preliminary discussions, UN agencies have expressed their interest in contributing to the relief effort for the health sector through the Central Emergency Response Fund. This would not cover the losses of MHMS,however,butonlyquickfixestorestoreaffectedclinics to a functional level.

Table 28 gives an indication of potential funding sources for the recovery needs. At this stage, MHMS external support is being sought to fund these initiatives

Table 27: Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs for Health and Education

Activity

Medium- to Long-Term Recovery Needs

(US$ million)

Build Back Better Recovery Needs

(US$ million)

Schools Reconstruct schools 0.540 5.24Health clinics Strengthen coordination mechanisms within and outside the health sector 0.068Establish early warning and response system 0.076 Conduct nutrition assessment of affected population 0.008Carry out evidence-based nutritional interventions to protect young children 0.027

Total 0.719 5.24


so that additional funds need not be diverted from the core budget.

Education. Preliminary discussions with MEHRD suggest that the majority of repairs and restocking of curricular materials can be absorbed under its existing budget. The estimate given in table 28 is derived from combining the short-term and medium- to long-term repairs that would return the buildings to their pre-

disaster state. MEHRD has also indicated that the sector would benefit from additional technical assistanceactivities to help coordinate the works schedule with repairs that had already been planned. The cost of technical assistance has not been included in the recovery needs, as further scoping work would be required to ascertain the desired activities and to gauge interest from donors to in supporting the assistance.

Table 28: Potential Funding Sources in Health and Education


Potential Funding Sources Financing Gap (US$ million)Source (government or donors) US$ million

Education short term 1.23 Government sector budget support 1.23

Health short term 0.80

Health medium- to long- term 0.12

Total 2.15 0.92

Tuvaruhu Public School. Photo: Courtesy school principal.

Any medium- to long-term recovery efforts will need further assessment of the flood’s effect on the health of the Solomon Islands population (for example, relating to nutrition and reproductive and child health). The referral system linking different facilities has been affected, and while it seems to be getting back on track, the disruption might have medium- or long-term consequences for the health sector.

Collecting flood level data at Koa Hill.Collectionofaccuratefloodlevel data will support the BSURE approach.

Flood mark, Koa Hill. Photo: Stephen Yeo

This section explores and seeks to understand the localized geographic impact of the April 2014 floods.It first provides an overview of the country’s hazardsetting and analyzes the urban/peri-urban risk setting. Indications are that urban vulnerability is increasing over time, likely with consequential drag on the national economy. This section then assesses the underlyingcausesofthefloodandlooksatthefloodriskmanagementmeasuresinplaceatthetimeoftheflood.It makes recommendations for more detailed mapping andmodellingofthefloodhazard,andformappingandprojections of settlement growth and land-use needs in different parts of Honiara, in particular the vulnerable areas. The resulting information will help in developing credible options for reducing flood risk. Finally, thissection recommends an integrated program designed to break the urban risk cycle. The recommendations are clusteredaccordingtoactivities tomodify(i) the floodhazard, (ii) human use of the floodplain, and (iii) thehumanresponsestoflooding.

5.1 Setting the context5.1.1 National hazard settingThe Solomon Islands is one of the 20 countries most vulnerable to natural disasters, being subject to cyclones, floods,landslides,stormsurges,earthquakes,tsunamis,anddroughts.ThePacificCatastropheRiskAssessmentand Financing Initiative (PCRAFI 2012) estimates that the Solomon Islands faces average annual losses of around US$44 million due to tropical cyclones and earthquakes. Flooding has occurred with relentless frequency. Over and above the damage and losses suffered in April 2014, flooddamageinHoniaraandGuadalcanalhadoccurredas a result of Cyclone Angela (1966), Cyclone Glenda (1967), Cyclone Carlotta (1972), Cyclone Kerry (1979), Cyclone Bernie (1982), Cyclone Namu (1986), Cyclone Ului (2010), and Cyclone Yasi (2011), and as a result of excessively heavy rainfall in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.

5.1.2 Urban and peri-urban risk settingThe global trend toward urbanization3 is evident in the Solomon Islands. According to national census reports, urban growth rates have been higher than rural growth rates for the last 30 years. Extrapolating from the 2009 national census figures, it is estimated that at least129,000 people, or 22.2 percent of the total population, live in urban areas in 2014, an increase of 27,000 people overthepastfiveyears.ThefigurewouldbehigherifthepopulationofHoniara’speri-urbansettlements locatedwithinGuadalcanalProvincewereincluded(figure14).

In-migration to urban centers is typically driven by employment and livelihood opportunities or prospects. In 2005, the urban product (i.e., the level of economic activity in urban areas) was 37 percent, although only 16.3 percent of the country’s total population lived inurban areas at that time. Similarly, in 2010 the urban contribution to GDP was 66 percent (although this figurealsoincludesminingactivities).4 The 2005–2006 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (Solomon Islands Statistics Office 2006) found that the medianannual per capita expenditure of urban households was 3.5 times greater than that of rural households.

The urban areas and Honiara in particular function as important engines of economic growth. The growth in urban population is positively correlated with growth in GDP per capita and decline in poverty levels over the past 10 years. It would be economically rational for the Solomon Islands to take full advantage of urbanization and the economic opportunities it presents.

On the supply side, urban management systems, land use, and service delivery have failed to keep pace with this rapid growth. For the past 30 years or so, little in the way of new subdivisions or serviced land has been available for low- or lower-middle-income groups. As a result, both new migrants into the city and new households that have grown naturally out of existing

5. Managing Flood Risk and Building Urban Risk Resilience

3 Bymid-2010,forthefirsttimeinhistory,moreoftheworld’spopulationlivedinurbanratherthanruralareas(UN-Habitat2011).4 Urban contribution to GDP was derived from national accounts; see Soubbotina (2004).

/ 35


householdshavehadtofindtheirownlandandhousingsolutions. UN-Habitat (2012) reports that 35 percent of Greater Honiara’s population lives in 30 informalsquatter settlements. Growth rates in these informal settlements are high—around 6 percent a year—and there are reports that middle-income as well as low-income households build in these areas, given the overall shortage of serviced land. An estimated 4,000 people live in areas well located for employment, such as the highly vulnerable informal settlements of Koa Hill, Vara Creek, Lord Howe, and Burns Creek.

Key national and strategic infrastructure and facilities are also located in areas of risk. These include the Honiara International Airport, the Point Cruz port

and fuel depot, the Marine Training School, and a number of bridges and land transport routes linking Honiara to the Guadalcanal agricultural hinterland.

All these factors combine to trap Honiara (and to some extent other secondary towns) in a cycle of worsening risk (illustrated in annex 8), though some of the risk could be mitigated or prevented through improved urban and risk management.

5.1.3 Anatomy of a disaster: Underlying causes of the April 2014 flash floods

The causes of the April 2014 disaster involve the intersection of a severe flood hazard and a highlyvulnerable population. To build flood resilience, it is

Figure 14: Informal Settlement Straddling Guadalcanal Province/Honiara City Council

5. Managing Flood Risk and Building Urban Risk Resilience / 37

useful to analyze the causes of the disaster, and to focus in particular on the Mataniko River and the communities of Vara Creek and Koa Hill, where the loss of life was concentrated(figure15).

Onthehazardsideofthedisasterequation,thefloodmay be attributed primarily to a slow-moving tropical depression that brought very heavy rain—a record 318mm was recorded at Honiara for the 24 hours ending 11 a.m. on April 4. Peaking at about 2 p.m. on Thursday April3,theflashfloodwasverydeepinsomeplaces(e.g.,4.35moverthefloorofSt.JohntheBaptistchurchatKoaHill). The flowwas reportedly fast and carried a greatdeal of debris, including whole trees and houses.

A lack of hydrological data makes it difficult toestimate an average return period for the flood withanyconfidence.ThedailyrainfallmeasuredatHoniara

is associated with events having return periods greater than 100 years (Lal and Thurairajah 2011). But the criticaltimeperiodtoproducethelargestflowsforthe57km2 Mataniko catchment would likely be much less than 24 hours. Further, the annual recurrence frequency of rainfall at a location is not the equivalent of floodfrequency. Anecdotal evidence suggests about a 50- to 100-yearreturnperiodfortheflood.(Thisdoesn’tmeanthatafloodofthissizewillnotreturnfor50or100years,butratherthatsuchafloodhasa1–2percentchanceofoccurring in any given year).

On the vulnerability side of the disaster equation, the immediate cause of the disaster was the highly exposed houses, located on dangerously low ground, especially at Koa Hill, where residents say the land was once a swamp. The low-resilience housing styles also contributed to vulnerability. Traditional leaf houses were

HEAVY RAIN

FLOOD HAZARD

VULN

ERAB

ILIT

Y

CATCHMENTSEA LEVEL FLOODPLAIN• Heavy antecedent rain• 318mm to 11 a.m. April 4• Higher inland

• Deep, fast, rapid-rising, high debris, frequency?

• Low tide at 2 p.m. April 3• No indication storm surge

• Drainage network• Steep• Forestry

• Narrow• Landslide/log clams• Obstructions to flow• Alluvial sediment

• 21 fatalities• What if at night?• 239 houses destroyed• Bridge destroyed• School damaged• Businesses damaged

• Flood waring system?• Flood education?• Emergency response?

FLASH FLOOD

HIGHLY EXPOSEDHOUSES

DANGEROUSLOCATIONS

UNPLANNEDURBANIZATION

LOW-RESILIENCEHOUSING

LOW INCOMES

MATANIKODISASTER

INADEQUATE COMMUNITYRESPONSES

Figure 15: Analysis of Causes of the April 2014 Mataniko River Flood Disaster


disproportionatelydamagedintheflood,thoughatKoaHill the flood depths, velocities, and debris load weresuch that even block concrete houses were destroyed.

Asevereflashfloodandahighlyexposedpopulationwere ingredients for a disaster on the afternoon of April 3, 2014. Only an appropriate response from those in danger’s way might have saved lives, butanecdotal reports suggest that many people responded inadequately. Consideration should be given to whether thefloodwarningsystem,floodeducationinitiatives,oremergency response operations could be improved.

Some 22 people lost their lives in the Mataniko River flooddisaster ofApril 2014.Anumberof nearmisseswere also reported: several people held on to the apex of the church roof, and a boy survived despite being washeddownriverfromKoaHilltothesea.Hadthefloodoccurred at night, with fully occupied houses and rescues moredifficult tocarryout, theremightwellhavebeenhundredsof fatalities.The floodingalsodestroyed235houses along the valley, washed away the old Mataniko Bridge, inundated classrooms at Honiara High School, and affected many businesses in Chinatown, partly because of extensive riverbank erosion.

5.2 Breaking the cycle of increasing riskEvery natural hazard does not have to result in a disaster. With better policy, planning, and coordination, urbanization could become a positive force for economic growth and poverty reduction rather than a factor increasing natural hazard risk. To be sure, building back better at the city level will require an integrated strategy, such as the Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience (BSURE) approach summarized in Figure 16 and described in more detail in section 5.6.

As the figure shows,managing flood risk requiresassessment of the risk, followed by interventions to reduce the risk by modifying the hazard, modifying exposure and vulnerability, and modifying-short term responses.

5.3 Better understanding the risk5.3.1 Flood hazard assessmentFlood hazards in the Solomon Islands are in general poorlyunderstood;annex9,whichmeasuresfloodriskmanagement practices in the Solomon Islands against best-practice benchmarks, makes this clear. The following measures are proposed to improve this situation.

Build and Strengthen Urban Resilience

(BSURE)

Figure 16: Strategic Approach to Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience

Note: The box at the upper right is included as annex 8, where it can be read more easily.

NO

YES

Modify the Hazard

Modify short-termresponses

Modify exposure and vulnerability

Breaking theUrban Risk Cycle

RIS

K A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T

“Business as Usual”Cycle of

IncreasingRisk

Had the Mataniko River flood disaster of April 2014 occurred at night,withfullyoccupiedhousesandrescuesmoredifficulttocarryout,there might well have been hundreds of fatalities.

Mataniko River flood. Photo: Stephen Yeo


a. Collect flood data for the April 2014 event. There is anurgentneedistocollectflooddatafromtheApril2014 event before it is lost in the course of time. In additiontomappingtheextentofflooding,thereisaneedtorecordflooddepthsandsurveypeakfloodlevels. These are vital data for the calibration of any floodmodellingthatisconducted.

b. Devise options to sustainably improve the hydrolog-ical monitoring network. Considerable investment has been made in improving hydrological moni-toring in the Solomon Islands. Unfortunately, min-imal data on rainfall and river levels were captured for theApril2014 flood,whichappears to reflecttheHydrologyUnit’slackofcapacityorfundingtomaintain the hydrological infrastructure—as well as occasional vandalism (see SPC 2012, 122–38). The current lack of data constrains both assess-mentoffloodrisksthroughmodellinganddeliveryoftimelyfloodwarnings.Thecurrentnetworkmustbe restored and expanded, while simultaneously increasing the capacity of the Hydrology Unit and committing to ongoing maintenance of the gauge infrastructure. Careful consideration of gauge loca-tions and security will be required to minimize the risk of vandalism.

c. Carry out flood modelling to inform an urban flood risk management master plan. Somefloodmappingbased on historical events is available, but it does not demonstrate best practice. The importance of Honiara as the capital and economic hub of the Sol-omon Islands, and the pressure placed by urban growthon floodplains, commendamorecompre-hensive investigation.

d. Assessments need to take account of multiple haz-ards. Flooding from rivers and creeks is just one hazard affecting greater Honiara. Ultimately there is a need for a multi-hazard assessment that in-cludes storm surge associated with tropical cy-clones as well as landslides and riverbank erosion.

5.3.2 Vulnerable areasImportant first steps in addressing risk in vulnerableareas have been taken, but the interventions are not large enough to make an impact on the cycle of deterioration described above. The government has recently completeddescriptive “urbanprofiles” for thethree main urban areas. It also is embarking on a number

of measures to carry out land tenure regularization in four “temporary housing” informal settlements within Honiara City, and to lay out and service a middle-income residential subdivision on greenfield, government-owned land at some distance from business areas of the city. It intends to review and update the Honiara Local Planning Scheme (2006), to carry out an organizational review and restructuring of the key units of Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey, and to review all land-related legislation.

It is critical that basic data be collected regarding household incomes and expenditures (we are awaiting results of the 2013 survey) and that a business and enterprise survey be undertaken. These data would (i) inform the government’s direction of growth tosecondary towns; (ii) make it possible from a risk perspective to predict the direction and pace of growth in urban villages/settlements and the associated land-use needs; and (iii) help the government direct growth to particular lower-risk parts of the city.

5.4 Risk-reducing options5.4.1 Modify the hazardThe following steps could be taken to reduce risk by modifyingthefloodhazard;

a. Watershed management. Given the intensity of the rain and the steep watershed, the land surface cov-erprobablyhadlittleeffectontheresultant floodin the Mataniko catchment. Nevertheless, a prudent “no regrets” measure is best practice for watershed management. Better understanding the extent of forestry operations is required, along with positive land management practices such as reforestation to increase rainfall interception and slope stabili-ty. Similarly, agricultural practices such as planting alongthecontourwouldbebeneficial.

b. Riverbank protection/rehabilitation. In some plac-es, riverbank erosion is threatening important fa-cilities and infrastructure, and engineering mea-sures such as rock gabion walls may be required to contain the erosion. The naturally dynamic nature of river channels in the Solomon Islands also needs to be acknowledged. Recognizing the likelihood of riv-ersshifting,Roy(1990)mappedwidefloodchannel


zones for rivers on the Guadalcanal Plains,. Aerial photography of the Lungga River delta shows sub-stantial changes from 1949 to 2013. In such an area, the large-scale investment that would be required to stabilize the river could well be in vain. But the plant-ing of deep-rooted trees, grasses, and reeds might be used to slow down the rate of change.

c. Bridge protection. Much damage was done by the debris carried along in the floodwater in April2014. The resilience of bridges would be enhanced by building back structures with higher decks and larger spans, with fewer piers presenting an obsta-cletoflow.Anypierscouldbeprotectedbydeflec-tors(thoughsomedeflectorsusedinthepasthavebeen stolen).

d. Maintenance of flow conveyance. An inspection of culverts around Honiara suggests that many are partly blocked by debris. There is also a large quantityofrubbishinwatercourses.Inaflood,thismeans that the culverts may be entirely blocked, divertingflowintoareasthatmightnototherwisehaveflooded.A key requirement to facilitate the conveyance of flow is tomaintain thecreeksanddrainage in-frastructure. It is understood that this would be a Ministry of Infrastructure Development function for road culverts, but which if any organization is responsible for cleaning creeks within the city is unclear. More broadly, extending the provision of waste collection services and seeking to shift the culture of using the creeks for solid waste disposal would be advantageous.Conveyance can also be affected by obstructions on thefloodplain,andthefloodeffectofdevelopmentsshould be assessed in the approvals process.

e. Structural works to increase flood immunity of Hen-derson Airport. Henderson Airport experienced floodingonseveraloccasionsbefore2014,includ-ing in 1967, 1972, and 1986. One proposal put forward by Trustrum, Whitehouse, and Blaschke (1989)was for “stop banks” to prevent overflowchannels of the Lungga River from inundating the airport.Aformalizedflooddiversionchannelcoulddirect overflows around the southern side of therunway toward Alligator Creek. A full assessment would be required to evaluate the economic, social, and environmental feasibility of the works. Detailed

floodmodellingwouldlikelyberequired,becausewithdrawing somuchof the flood storagearea isexpected to increase flood levelselsewhere.Localdecision makers will need to determine whether the increase is acceptable.

f. Drainage master plan. Every wet season, Honiara is beset by routine drainage problems that include surface water on roads and inundation of some buildings. Preparation of a detailed drainage mas-terplanwouldmakeitpossibletocalculateflows,identify current assets, determine the need for new or expanded assets, identify overland flow pathsand opportunities for retention basins, and con-sider drainage design standards and detailing. A drainage master plan would need to link up with theproposedfloodhazardmapping.There isalsoa need for legislative review to help delineate and strengthen the ability of MID and Honiara City Council to control new developments and remove encroachments into watercourses.

5.4.2 Modify exposure and vulnerabilityThe following measures are proposed for modifying exposure and vulnerability:

a. Best-practice hazard mapping should inform city and local planning as well as building design in exist-ing and new settlements.

b. Use of low-hazard land should be maximized.c. For residential serviced land, a twin-track approach

should be implemented. Thefirsttrackwouldinvolvephased area/settlement upgrading with tenure reg-ularization. Following negotiations with the commu-nity,apackageofservicestomeetthecommunity’sidentified needs would be provided; the packagewouldbebasedoncommunitymembers’abilityandwillingness to pay for land and services (and would thus discourage in-migration). The pilot areas would be in Honiara City, peri-urban settlements, and Gizo, basedonthehazardriskprofileofeachareaandonthe willingness of the communities to participate. The second track would involve designing and build-ing phased new serviced subdivisions that target low- and middle-income groups. The project would seek full recovery of land (opportunity) costs and maintenance of service levels (which could require utility agencies to use sinking funds for transparen-


cy). The pilot would be located in a low-hazard area in Honiara City, peri-urban settlements, and Gizo, ac-cordingtotheidentifieddemand(basedonmarketsurveys) for land in that particular area.

d. Ways of promoting voluntary resettlement from very dangerous locations should be considered.

e. Involuntary resettlement should be a last resort, and populations should be relocated as close as possible to their original location.

f. Guidelines for hazard-resilient housing, including for low-income groups, should be reviewed and updated. Some good information is available for designing and building hazard-resistant houses in the Solomon Islands. Some useful papers were presented at the National Disaster Preparedness Workshop in 1990. However, an inspection of damaged houses after the April 2014 floods suggests that building stan-dards—even for concrete dwellings presumably be-longing to middle-income residents—are wanting. In particular, at some sites the uprooted foundations wereseentobeveryshallow,andthefloorandwallswereseentobeinadequatelyfixedtothecolumns.A review and update of available guidelines, and possible promulgation of the guidelines through the Solomon Islands Built Environment Professionals Association (SIBEPA), is recommended. Options for low-income groups should be considered.

5.4.3 Modify short-term responsesThe following measures are proposed for modifying short-term responses:

a. Review and strengthen flood warning systems. After everysevereflood,areviewoftheperformanceofthetotalfloodwarningsystemisappropriate.Thiswill help to identify how the system can be im-proved. A preliminary analysis suggests that more clearly differentiating heavy rain alerts from heavy rain warnings would be helpful, given the height-ened threat of flood associated with the latter.There also appears to be scope for greater spatial precision in these messages. In addition to a review of overall system perfor-mance, there is a need for an early warning system for the Mataniko River. While ideally the most se-verely affected land would not be resettled, reset-tlement cannot be ruled out, and there must be a

system in place to ensure that those living in low-ly-ing areas have time to escape to higher ground. A warning systemwould also benefit businesses inChinatown. Several simple community-based sys-tems have been introduced in Guadalcanal. An ide-al warning system could be designed so that when a water-level recorder reaches predetermined thresholds, an SMS is sent to the appropriate gov-ernment ministries (including one with 24-hour capability, such as the police) and to wardens for each community located along the river.

b. Review and strengthen flood education initiatives to promote safer behavior during flooding. For floodwarnings to be effective, the communities exposed tofloodingneedtobeawareoftheirriskandreadyto respond in good time. The experience of the April 2014floodsuggeststhatfurtherworkisneededtoensurecommunitiesarereadyforflooding.Guide-lines could be developed to help businesses, com-munities, and key organizations (including Honia-ra International Airport) prepare their own floodemergency response plans. One salient message is thatfuturefloodswillbebiggerthanthoseexperi-enced in the past.

c. Provide hazard-proof evacuation shelters where gaps were identified. A preliminary assessment followingtheApril2014floodindicatesthatsomecommunities are located a long way from evacua-tion centers. There were reports from the Burns Creek community, for example, of women and chil-dren evacuating through waist-deep water over a distance of more than 2km. In such circumstances, one misstep into a drain could result in tragedy. A detailed analysis of evacuation risks is needed; and where the risk is judged to be intolerable, resilient evacuation shelters should be built.

5.5 Intervention to address risk: Next steps for Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience (BSURE) strategy

Table 29 describes the BSURE program for strengthening flood risk management and urban resilience. Earlydiscussions indicate a need for greater coordination between the various stakeholders to implement the program (details of institutional aspects are described in annex 10).


Table 29: Building and Strengthening Urban Resilience Strategy

Activity Agency

Short-Term(3–6

months)

Medium- to Long-Term

(> 6 months)

INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATIONEnhance coordination between existing institutions and clarify arrangements and responsibilities for flood risk management

Solomon Islands government, NDMO

✓ ✓

Nominate lead agencies for BSURE Solomon Islands government ✓ ✓

RISK ASSESSMENTFlood hazardFlood hazard mappingCollect flood data (high priority)Survey flood peak levelsConduct LIDAR survey and digital elevation modellingCarry out flood modellingIdentify high-risk areas in citywide plans

Donors, MECDM, Division of Water Resources, MLHS, Honiara City Council

✓ ✓

Devise options to sustainably improve the hydrological monitoring network Donors, Division of Water Resources

✓

Conduct a multi-hazard assessment for Honiara including storm surge, landslide, and riverbank erosion

Donors ✓

Vulnerable areas

Collect data on household income and expenditures and conduct a businesses and enterprise survey

✓

Project urban growth direction, pace, and land-use needs within greater Honiara, Auki, and Gizo (high priority)

MLHS ✓

RISK REDUCTION MEASURESModify the flood hazardManage watersheds Forestry, Agriculture ✓

Protect/rehabilitate riverbanks MID, To be confirmed ✓

Protect bridges from debris impact MID ✓

Maintain flow conveyance MID, Honiara City Council ✓

Construct a ring levee to increase flood immunity of Henderson Airport MID ✓

Prepare a drainage master plan MID ✓

Modify exposure and vulnerabilityImplement twin-track approach for residential serviced land:Upgrade informal settlements, including security of tenure and user-pays-for-services approach Identify service and allocate new residential and business land (lease/sale prices to include cost recovery)

MLHS ✓ ✓

Promote voluntary resettlement from very dangerous locations MLHS ✓ ✓

Review and update guidelines for hazard-resilient housing, including for low-income groups

SIBEPA ✓

Modify short-term responses to flooding

Review and strengthen flood warning systems MECDM; Division of Water Resources

✓

Review and strengthen flood education initiatives MECDM ✓

Provide hazard-proof evacuation shelters where gaps have been identified MECDM ✓

Note: MECDM = Ministry of Environment Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology; SIBEPA = Solomon Islands Built Environment Profes-sionals Association

The flooding has irreparably damaged or completely destroyed 243 houses in Honiara, and around 432 houses in Guadalcanal Province.

Burns Creek community. Photo: RAMSI

/ 45

The following tables present the needs for recovery and reconstruction, prioritized as short-, medium-, and long-term activities. The time frames for these interventions are purely indicative, since timing will depend in part on institutional arrangements and both domestic and external financial support. For further information onthese requirements, see the discussion of individual sectors in chapter 4.

Table 30 summarizes the estimated costs for recov-ery and reconstruction. Total recovery and reconstruc-tion is estimated at SI$401 million (US$56.03 million). Of this amount, SI$99 million (US$14.59 million) is re-quired in the short term (three to six months), with the remaining activities intended for the medium to long term (beyond six months) and expected to include some build back better initiatives.

6.1 Recovery and reconstruction needs Table 31 details the recovery and reconstruction activities to be commenced in the short, medium, and

long term in order to restore livelihood and services in the various sectors. The majority of activities are to be completed in the medium to long term. Funding priorities should be established in consultation with the government and its development partners.

6.2 Future funding requirementsPreliminary discussions among sectors and development partners indicate that some US$13.58 million may be available to assist with recovery and reconstruction; this would reduce the bill to US$41.5 million. Similarly, some sectors—e.g., health and education, water and sanitation—may be able to bear some of the costs of damage repair from their sector budget support. A donor pledging conference should be co-convened by the Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination (MDPAC) and MoFT to establish the full potential of donor contributions. Equally, internal discussions with line ministries should be held to establish the level of financialcoststhatcanbeabsorbedfromsectorbudgetsupport.

6. Summary of Recovery and Reconstruction Needs

Table 30: Total Recovery and Reconstruction Needs (US$ million)

Sector Short-Term Medium- to Long-Term Total

Transport 5.84 28.81 34.65a

Water and sanitation 0.74 4.50 5.24b

Agriculture 2.90 2.73 5.63c

Housing 2.62 2.62

Health and education 1.49 5.42 6.91

Total 13.59 41.46 55.03Source: EstimatesbasedonofficialdatafromtheSolomonIslandsgovernment.

a. Early indications suggest that US$12.08 million of this has already been sourced. Please refer to the discussion of transport (section 4.1).

b. Around US$370,000 has been received from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia and World Vision. Please refer to the discussion of water and sanitation (section 4.2).

c. Approximately US$1.13 million indicated; see section 4.3 on the agriculture sector.


Sector Activity US$Short-Term

Medium- Term

Long- Term

Transport

Repair to unpaved roads 50,000 x Repair to paved roads 1,828,000 x Repair to bridges 2,361,000 x Repair to culverts and road-related drainage 206,000 x Repairs to Henderson Airport 1,393,000 x Repair to unpaved roads 229,000 x Repair to paved roads 522,000 x Repair to bridges 2,655,000 x Repair to culverts and road-related drainage 639,000 x Improvements to bridges including climate proofing 23,888,000 xImprovements to culverts including climate proofing 878,000 x

Water & sanitation

Rehabilitation of hand-dug wells 130,000 x Development and dissemination of basic hygiene messages to communities 70,000 x Additional water quality treatment, monitoring, and control 50,000 x Replenishment of RWSS warehouse 490,000 x Drilling of boreholes in affected communities to be fitted with hand/solar pumps 140,000 x Repair of affected piped water supplies and rainwater harvesting systems in Guadalcanal Province 310,000 x Supply of WASH services to new population centers 100,000 x Use of BBB/disaster risk reduction approach in hand-dug shallow wells 1,920,000 xDuplication of Kongulai gravity main 1,750,000 x xDevelopment of municipal wastewater collection and treatment master plan 80,000 x xDevelopment of water supply master plan 80,000 x xDevelopment of Honiara drainage master plan 110,000 x x

Agriculture

Provision of seeds, seedlings, suckers, cuttings, and other agricultural inputs for replanting of crops 1,900,000 x Cash for work activities for community-level cleaning to enable affected families to meet food needs, purchase equipment, and/or rebuild animal housing and restock 1,000,000 x Support for promotion of resilient agriculture techniques (intercropping, fruit tree planting, integrated farming systems using permaculture technique); support for community nurseries, techniques for improved resilience against floods (e.g., improved drainage systems, training in disaster risk reduction techniques—including traditional storage techniques) 1,600,000 x xSupport for MAL and Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in developing tools for assessing damage and loss needs, including support for the development of accurate baseline information. 10,000 x xSupport for restocking, rehabilitation of livestock structure with BBB technique, restoration of water facilities for household chickens and pigs, and designation of an area where they can be safely evacuated during heavy floods. 600,000 x xBoosting of sustainable production through investing in both research and local capacity building by introducing lower-cost, locally available ingredients into commercial feeds as a way to improve profit margins. 5,000 x xProvision of fishing gears and equipment 240,000 x xPromotion of community fisheries–based management 270,000 x x

Table 31: Recovery and Reconstruction Needs

6. Summary of Recovery and Reconstruction Needs / 47

Sector Activity US$ Short-TermMedium-

TermLong- Term

HousingRepair and upgrade program 1,800,000 x Provision of transitional shelter 820,000 x

Health & education

Minor repair of flood damage to health centers 148,000 x Recuperation of losses to health sector 649,000 x Strengthening of coordination mechanisms within and outside the health sector 68,000 x xEstablishment of early warning and response system 76,000 x xCarrying out of nutrition assessment of affected population 7,874 x xCarrying out of evidence-based nutritional interventions to protect young children 27,000 x xMinor repair of flood damage to schools 690,000 x

Reconstruction of schools 5,240,000 xFlood risk management

Flood risk management and urban resilience 1,000,000 x

Total needs 56,029,874 14,585,000 41,444,874

Table 31: Recovery and Reconstruction Needs (cont.)

The flooding has irreparably damaged or completely destroyed 243 houses in Honiara, and around 432 houses in Guadalcanal Province.

Riverbank erosion, lower Mataniko River. Photo: Stephen Yeo

/ 49

Ishmael Alulu, Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Ronald Amigo, Deputy City Clerk, Honiara City Council

Kent Asagolomo, Guadalcanal Province

Hearly Atupule, Deputy Director Livestock, Technical Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

Audrey Aumua, World Health Organization

Simon Baete, Deputy Director Livestock, Research and Information, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

Jay Bartlett, Hatanga

Dr. Chris Becha, Ministry of Health and Medical Services

Roger Benzie, New Britain Palm Oil, Guadalcanal Plains

Kerryn Bouyer, NPH

Lance Cash, Media Relations Adviser, Honiara City Council

Samantha Chapman, World Health Organization

Lucinda Coates, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University

Frank Daukalia, Solomon Water

Dr. Joel Denty, Guadalcanal Province

Nick Dutta, World Health Organization

Brian Halisanau, Ministry of Civil Aviation

Tim Harris, Acting Director, Solomon Islands Maritime Safety Administration

Leon Hickie, Provincial Fisheries Division, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

MichaelHo’ota,DirectorAgricultureExtension,Ministryof Agriculture and Livestock Development

John Hughes, Transport Policy and Coordination Adviser, Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Ridha Jebeniani, World Health Organization

Salvador Jiao, Project Manager, Rapid Employment Project

Don Johnston, International Federation of Red Cross

Moses Karuni, Honiara City Council

Charles Kelly, City Clerk, Honiara City Council

LukeKiddle,SeniorDevelopmentOfficer,NewZealandHigh Commission

Douglas Kimie, Government Statistician, Ministry of Finance and Treasury

Mathew Korinihona, Solomon Islands Electricity Authority

Gus Kraus, Operation Manager, Solomon Airlines

Louisa Laekeni, National Archives Solomon Islands

Naoko Laka, Japan International Cooperation Agency

Peter Lawther, International Federation of Red Cross

Isaac Lekelalu, Division of Water Resources, Ministry of Mines,EnergyandRuralElectrification

Nicholas Leleu, Ministry of Civil Aviation

Francis Lomo, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation

Max Lua, Guadalcanal Provincial Government

Eric Lui, First Secretary, Development, Australian High Commission

Esmy Magu, Ministry of Health and Medical Services

Simon McGree, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Scott McNamara, First Secretary, Economic Infrastructure, Australian High Commission

Sarah Mecartney, UN-Habitat

Charles Meke, Crisis Response Intervention Support Program

John Norton, Norton Consulting

Annex 1: List of People Consulted


Jimmy Nuake, Under Secretary, Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Divi Ogaoga, Ministry of Health and Medical Services

Moses Pelomo, Chairperson, Kastom Garden Association

Hamptan Pitu, Crisis Response Intervention Support Program

AlexRilifia,SolomonIslandsMeteorologicalService

Harry Rini, Director, Central Project Implementing Unit, Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Carol Robertson, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University

EmmaRooke,ChiefVeterinaryOfficer,MinistryofAgriculture and Livestock Development

Jimmy Saelea, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

Matt Shortus, World Health Organization

Adrian Simbe, Honiara City Council

David Spring, Team Leader, Transport Sector Development Project, Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Peter Spring, SKM

Francis Tofuakalo, Director, Provincial Fisheries Division, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

Lily Wane, Women in Agriculture, Department Agriculture Extension, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

Peter Weston, World Vision International

Michael Wyatt, Ministry of Health and Medical Services

LotiYates,NationalDisasterManagementOffice

Traffic chaos following loss of bridges. Photo: Solomon Star

Annex 2: Estimation of Damage to Transportation Infrastructure / 51

Ty

pe o

f Dam

age

Loca

tion

Emer

genc

y Re

pairs

(US$

)

Rest

orati

on

Cost

, Med

ium

-Te

rm (U

S$)

Estim

ated

Co

st o

f Bui

ldin

g Ba

ck B

etter

(U

S$)

Estim

ated

Sh

ort-T

erm

Co

st (U

S$)

Estim

ated

M

ediu

m- t

o Lo

ng-T

erm

Cos

t (U

S$)

Rura

l roa

ds

49,

259.

80

2

28,5

64.3

9 –

4

9,25

9.80

–

Unp

aved

road

sTo

tal n

etw

ork

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Land

slide

Vera

hue

4

,450

.77

6

8,47

3.45

4

,450

.77

– Sh

ould

er e

rosio

nSa

vauh

i Vill

age

5

8,75

0.22

– –

Debr

is Ve

rahu

e Vi

llage

(cen

tral

eas

t)

7,1

21.2

4

7,1

21.2

4 –

Land

slide

Vera

hue

Villa

ge (c

entr

al w

est)

2

1,36

3.72

21,

363.

72

– La

ndsli

deVe

rahu

e Vi

llage

(Wes

tern

End

)

6,2

31.0

8

6,2

31.0

8 –

Dam

aged

road

sN

uhu

Rive

r

9,7

91.7

0

9,7

91.7

0 –

Dam

aged

road

sLa

mbi

Sch

ool (

Wes

tern

End

)

1

9,58

3.41

– –

Dam

aged

road

sLa

mbi

Sch

ool (

East

ern

End)

17,

803.

10

–

– M

alai

taDa

mag

ed ro

ads

Nor

th M

alai

ta

53,

409.

29

– –

Isab

elLa

ndsli

deHa

evo

Road

301.

28

1

0,54

4.91

301.

28

– U

rban

road

s

1,82

7,83

0.35

521

,973

.13

–

1,82

7,83

0.35

–

East

Gua

dalc

anal

Dam

aged

road

sHi

ghw

ay a

djac

ent t

o He

nder

son

airp

ort

8

0,11

3.94

80,

113.

94

–

Dam

aged

road

s1k

m a

fter M

etab

ona

Brid

ge

26,

704.

65

3

,560

.62

26,

704.

65

–

Honi

ara

Dam

aged

road

sVa

ra C

reek

road

to T

uvar

uhu

Road

2

56,0

90.7

1

256

,090

.71

– Da

mag

ed ro

ads

Lio

Cree

k (P

anati

na) R

oad

9

,038

.50

5

3,40

9.29

9

,038

.50

–

Dam

aged

road

sEa

st H

onia

ra H

ighw

ay—

Law

son

Tam

a to

KGI

V

106

,202

.33

1

06,2

02.3

3 –

Dam

aged

road

sSt

. Mar

tyn’

s Roa

d

167

,212

.17

1

67,2

12.1

7 –

Dam

aged

road

sTu

varu

hu R

oad

4

06,7

32.3

1

406

,732

.31

–

Dam

aged

road

sKo

la R

idge

Roa

d (H

onia

ra H

ighw

ay

to T

anul

i Roa

d)

30

1.28

11,

298.

12

30

1.28

–

Dam

aged

road

sZi

on R

oad

3

5,40

0.78

35,

400.

78

–

Dam

aged

road

sLa

ngak

iki–

Mbo

kona

Loo

p

2

56,0

90.7

1

– –

Dam

aged

road

sTa

sahe

B R

oad

6

32,6

94.7

0

6

32,6

94.7

0 –

Dam

aged

road

sRi

fle R

ange

Roa

d

11,

448.

76

1

1,44

8.76

–

Dam

aged

road

sSk

ylin

e-M

boko

nave

ra R

oad

1

95,8

34.0

8

– –

Dam

aged

road

sIn

depe

nden

ce V

alle

y

71,

856.

04

7

1,85

6.04

–

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Dam

aged

road

sTu

rtle

Bea

ch C

ulve

rt 2

2

4,03

4.18

24,

034.

18

– Fa

llen

tree

sW

hite

Riv

er to

Sas

a

1,7

80.3

1

– –

Anne

x 2:

Esti

mati

on o

f Dam

age

to T

rans

port

Infr

astr

uctu

re


Ty

pe o

f Dam

age

Loca

tion

Emer

genc

y Re

pairs

(US$

)

Rest

orati

on

Cost

, Med

ium

-Te

rm (U

S$)

Estim

ated

Co

st o

f Bui

ldin

g Ba

ck B

etter

(U

S$)

Estim

ated

Sh

ort-T

erm

Co

st (U

S$)

Estim

ated

M

ediu

m- t

o Lo

ng-T

erm

Cos

t (U

S$)

Brid

ges

2,

360,

197.

75

2,

654,

387.

09

23,8

87,6

10.9

32,

360,

197.

75

23,8

87,6

10.9

3

East

Gua

dalc

anal

Wes

t app

roac

h w

ashe

d aw

ayM

bala

suna

Brid

ge

20,

542.

04

2

49,2

43.3

7

2,05

4,20

3.59

20,

542.

04

2,

054,

203.

59

2 up

stre

am p

iers

dam

aged

Mbe

rand

e Br

idge

1,7

80.3

1

267

,046

.47

2,

054,

203.

59

1

,780

.31

2,

054,

203.

59

Debr

is N

gala

nim

bui B

ridge

4

,450

.77

4

,450

.77

– De

bris

Vouz

a Br

idge

(Mbe

rand

e br

idge

)

2,7

38.9

4

2,7

38.9

4 –

Dam

age

to w

este

rn

abut

men

tKo

vela

u Br

idge

34,

236.

73

1

36,9

46.9

1 –

1

36,9

46.9

1

Dam

aged

brid

geM

boki

kim

bo B

ridge

4

,450

.77

6,84

7,34

5.28

4,4

50.7

7

6,84

7,34

5.28

Go

ld R

idge

Brid

ge

68,

473.

45

205

,420

.36

6

8,47

3.45

205

,420

.36

Scou

ring

to e

mba

nkm

ent o

f w

este

rn a

butm

ent

Lung

ga B

ridge

5

12,1

81.4

3

512

,181

.43

–

Honi

ara

East

ern

abut

men

t was

hed

out

New

Mat

anik

o Br

idge

6

02,5

66.3

9

5,

287,

500.

00

6

02,5

66.3

9

5,28

7,50

0.00

Brid

ge w

ashe

d aw

ay,

rem

oval

of s

unk

brid

geO

ld M

atan

iko

Brid

ge

684

,734

.53

3

0,12

8.32

4,70

0,00

0.00

684

,734

.53

4,

700,

000.

00

Debr

is re

mov

alW

hite

Riv

er b

aile

y Br

idge

150.

64

150.

64

–

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Appr

oach

slab

s col

laps

edTo

mba

Brid

ge

227

,879

.65

3

5,60

6.20

205

,420

.36

2

27,8

79.6

5

205

,420

.36

Colla

psed

gab

ion

on e

aste

rn

abut

men

tPo

ha B

ridge

3

56,0

61.9

5

– –

Brid

ge a

ppro

ache

s was

hed

away

Tana

vasa

7

2,99

2.70

356

,061

.95

72,

992.

70

–

Brid

ge a

ppro

ache

s was

hed

away

Sasa

—lo

w-le

vel b

ridge

3

5,60

6.20

121

,061

.06

4

10,8

40.7

2

35,

606.

20

4

10,8

40.7

2

Edge

slip

on

appr

oach

slab

Tane

mba

Cau

sew

ay a

ppro

ach

3,0

26.5

3

– –

Gabi

ons w

ashe

d aw

ayTa

nem

ba C

ause

way

2

7,59

4.80

– –

Eros

ion

of th

e w

este

rn

abut

men

tTa

nem

ba (K

ohi B

ridge

)

3

2,93

5.73

– –

Erod

ed b

atter

slop

esVe

rava

hu fo

rd

15,

132.

63

–

– W

este

rn a

butm

ent a

nd

appr

oach

slab

col

laps

edSe

lwyn

Cau

sew

ay

35,

606.

20

5

34,0

92.9

3

3

5,60

6.20

–

Wes

tern

abu

tmen

t ero

ded

Bahi

Tim

ber B

ridge

2

9,37

5.11

3

01,2

83.1

9

29,

375.

11

3

01,2

83.1

9 1

span

was

hed

away

Bora

Tim

ber B

ridge

3

5,60

6.20

4

93,0

08.8

6

35,

606.

20

4

93,0

08.8

6 Er

osio

n to

wes

tern

app

roac

hHu

lavu

Tim

ber b

ridge

5

,340

.93

369

,756

.65

5

,340

.93

3

69,7

56.6

5 W

este

rn a

butm

ent w

ashe

d aw

ay (p

artia

l)La

mbi

Tim

ber B

ridge

6

,231

.08

273

,893

.81

6

,231

.08

2

73,8

93.8

1

Scou

ring

to e

aste

rn

abut

men

tM

bone

ge B

ridge

26,

704.

65

–

–

Annex 2: Estimation of Damage to Transportation Infrastructure / 53

Ty

pe o

f Dam

age

Loca

tion

Emer

genc

y Re

pairs

(US$

)

Rest

orati

on

Cost

, Med

ium

-Te

rm (U

S$)

Estim

ated

Co

st o

f Bui

ldin

g Ba

ck B

etter

(U

S$)

Estim

ated

Sh

ort-T

erm

Co

st (U

S$)

Estim

ated

M

ediu

m- t

o Lo

ng-T

erm

Cos

t (U

S$)

Brid

ges (

cont

.)

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Colla

psed

gab

ion

on w

este

rn

abut

men

tBe

lam

atan

ga B

ridge

2

13,6

37.1

7

– –

Debr

is Ta

mbo

ko B

ridge

5,3

40.9

3

– –

Mak

ira

East

ern

appr

oach

slab

co

llaps

edW

aiha

uru

caus

eway

1

,958

.34

1

05,4

49.1

2

547

,787

.62

1

,958

.34

5

47,7

87.6

2

Isab

elCo

llaps

ed lo

g br

idge

Bual

a-Ga

rang

a

7,5

32.0

8

241

,026

.55

7,5

32.0

8 –

Culv

erts

and

oth

er

road

dra

inag

e w

orks

2

03,5

03.1

0

638

,788

.84

8

76,4

60.2

0

203

,503

.10

8

76,4

60.2

0

Honi

ara

Clog

ged

culv

ert

Nga

lirau

gha—

cros

s dra

inag

e

9,9

42.3

5

9,9

42.3

5 –

Scou

red

culv

ert

Tasa

he D

rive

inte

rsec

tion

210

,898

.23

–

–

Insu

ffici

ent c

ulve

rtHi

ghw

ay in

Rov

e ar

ea (S

t. Jo

hn’s

Scho

ol)

1

0,54

4.91

158

,173

.68

10,

544.

91

–

Dam

aged

cul

vert

CBSI

cul

vert

3

,204

.56

3

,204

.56

–

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Colla

psed

gab

ion

wal

lM

bone

ge B

ox c

ulve

rt

12,

462.

17

8

,901

.55

12,

462.

17

– Sc

oure

d cu

lver

tTu

rtle

Bea

ch c

ulve

rt 1

1

4,24

2.48

53,

409.

29

2

05,4

20.3

6

14,

242.

48

2

05,4

20.3

6 Bu

ried

culv

ert

Tabe

a M

arke

t cul

vert

1

4,24

2.48

– –

Insu

ffici

ent c

ulve

rtKa

kabo

na c

ulve

rt

53,

409.

29

5

3,40

9.29

–

Brid

ge a

ppro

ache

s was

hed

away

Arul

ugo

6 ce

ll cu

lver

t (Sa

sa fo

rd)

6

7,65

1.77

106

,818

.59

2

05,4

20.3

6

67,

651.

77

2

05,4

20.3

6

Culv

ert w

ashe

d aw

ayLa

mbi

(Alo

ha V

illag

e)

23,

144.

03

123

,252

.22

2

3,14

4.03

123

,252

.22

Dow

nstr

eam

was

hed

away

Tana

ghai

Arc

cul

vert

51,

628.

98

2

73,8

93.8

1 –

2

73,8

93.8

1 In

suffi

cien

t cul

vert

Tana

ghai

Sch

ool c

ulve

rt

1

0,68

1.86

– –

Insu

ffici

ent c

ulve

rtTa

nagh

ai re

info

rced

con

cret

e bo

x cu

lver

t

1

0,68

1.86

– –

Out

let s

cour

edM

bone

ge p

ipe

culv

ert-1

8

,901

.55

8

,901

.55

– Da

mag

ed c

ulve

rtBe

lam

atan

ga c

ulve

rt 1

1,0

68.1

9

– –

Dam

aged

cul

vert

Bela

mat

anga

cul

vert

2

356.

06

–

– Sc

oure

d ou

tlet

Tam

boko

rein

forc

ed c

oncr

ete

box

4

,450

.77

–

–

Wes

t Gua

dalc

anal

Scou

red

win

g w

all

Nga

tu 8

cel

l cul

vert

7,1

21.2

4

– –

Dam

aged

cul

vert

Arol

igo

culv

ert

35

6.06

68,

473.

45

–

68,

473.

45


Ty

pe o

f Dam

age

Loca

tion

Emer

genc

y Re

pairs

(US$

)

Rest

orati

on

Cost

, Med

ium

-Te

rm (U

S$)

Estim

ated

Co

st o

f Bui

ldin

g Ba

ck B

etter

(U

S$)

Estim

ated

Sh

ort-T

erm

Co

st (U

S$)

Estim

ated

M

ediu

m- t

o Lo

ng-T

erm

Cos

t (U

S$)

Airp

ort

6

39,1

64.0

4

753

,207

.98

–

1,39

2,37

2.02

–

Perim

eter

fenc

e (5

00

met

res)

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

205

,420

.36

2

05,4

20.3

6 –

Drai

nage

cul

vert

out

let

runw

ayHe

nder

son

Airp

ort

8

9,01

5.49

89,

015.

49

–

Dom

estic

term

inal

and

offi

ces

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

22,

218.

23

2

2,21

8.23

–

Runw

ay m

arki

ngs

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

205

,420

.36

2

05,4

20.3

6 –

Runw

ay li

ghtin

g sy

stem

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

117

,089

.60

1

17,0

89.6

0 –

Perim

eter

road

re

cons

truc

tion

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

1

91,7

25.6

7

1

91,7

25.6

7 –

Back

road

reco

nstr

uctio

nHe

nder

son

Airp

ort

314

,977

.88

314

,977

.88

– O

uter

dra

inag

e re

cons

truc

tion

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

1

09,5

57.5

2

1

09,5

57.5

2 –

Dom

estic

car

par

k re

cons

truc

tion

Hend

erso

n Ai

rpor

t

1

36,9

46.9

1

1

36,9

46.9

1 –

Mar

itim

e N

one

TOTA

L

$5,0

79,9

55.0

4

$4,7

96,9

21.4

3 $2

4,76

4,07

1.12

$5,8

33,1

63.0

2 $2

4,76

4,07

1.12

Annex 3: Location of Cuts to Road Access / 55

Annex 3: Location of Cuts to Road Access

West Coast Route

ID No. Easting Northing Location1 599085 8958303 Tanavasa2 584317 8972646 Sasa Ford3 583033 8972996 Sasa4 568259 8973094 Selwyn Causway5 566730 8971665 Bahi Timber Bridge6 565826 8962269 Bora Timber Bridge7 566056 8961292 Hulavu Timber Bridge8 566772 8960038 Lambi Timber Bridge

Honiara CentralID No. Easting Northing Location

1 60582 895653 Old Mataniko Bridge

East Coast RouteID No. Easting Northing Location

1 64910 89533 Mbokokimbo Bridge

Gold Ridge MineID No. Easting Northing Location

N/A N/A N/A Passable Crossing

1 11

2

3

4

5

78

6


Annex 4: List of Build Back Better Structures in Transport Sector

Location Existing Structure and State of Damage Preliminary Assessed Option

Preliminary Cost Estimate(US$ million)

Mbalasuna Bridge, East GuadalcanalLow-level bridge; road cut off due to debris accumulation; approaches washed away

High-level bridge including climate proofing 2.10

Mberande Bridge, East GuadalcanalLow-level bridge; 2 piers damaged; road cut off due to debris accumula-tion and washed away structures

High-level bridge including climate proofing 2.10

Mbokokimbo Bridge, East Guadal-canal Existing engineered ford damaged High-level bridge 7.00

Gold Ridge Bridge East Guadalcanal Upgrade 0.21

New Mataniko Bridge, Honiara Upstream 2-lane bridge (financed by JICA) 5.30

Old Mataniko Bridge, HoniaraBailey bridge washed away; new Bailey bridge was completed in June 2014

New bridge (financed by JICA) 4.70

Tomba Bridge, West Guadalcanal Climate proofing and river training 0.21

Sasa Bridge Low-level bridge Climate proofing and river training 0.42

Bahi Timber Bridge, West Guadal-canal Timber bridge Low-level bridge 0.31

Bora Timber Bridge, West Guadal-canal Timber bridge Low-level bridge 0.50

Hulavu Timber bridge, West Guadal-canal Timber bridge Low-level bridge 0.38

Lambi Timber Bridge, West Guadal-canal Timber bridge Low-level bridge 0.28

Waihauru, Makira Causeway Low-level bridge 0.56

Turtle Beach culvert Culvert Single-span bridge 0.21

Aruligo (Sasa Ford) 6-cell culvert Climate proofing and river training 0.21

Lambi (Aloha Village) Culvert Single-span bridge 0.13

Tanaghai Arch culvert Culvert Single-span bridge 0.28

Total 24.90

Note: JICA = Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Annex 5: Seasonal Crop Calendar, Guadalcanal Province / 57

Annex 5: Seasonal Crop Calendar, Guadalcanal Province

Crops Planting to Harvest Season (months)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Wet season Dry season Wet season

Cocoa

Coconut (copra)

Palm oil

Taro

Cassava

Yam

Sweet potato

Pineapple

Pawpaw

Banana

Leafy vegetables

Slippery cabbage

Pana

= planting

= low yield

= high yield

= year round


Annex 6: Damage and Loss to Health Facilities (US$)

Facilities Damage Loss Total

Large damage 99,971

Pikinini 27,389 27,389

White River 31,498 13,695

Smaller damage – 20,541

Mataniko 6,847

New Tenabuti 13,694

Nurse aid posts 27,388

Selwyn 6,847 6,847

Tinaghulu 6,847 6,847

Total US$ 93,122 US$ 54,778 US $147,900

Annex 7: List of Schools with Reported Damage / 59

Annex 7: List of Schools with Reported Damage

Ruavatu Provincial Secondary School (PSS)

Kaotave Community High School (CHS)

Ngalibiu Primary

Kelyn Primary

White River CHS

Tuvaruhu CHS

Lunga CHS

Tumurora Primary

Mbalasuna Primary

St Joseph’s Tenaru National Secondary School (NSS)

Burns Creek CHS

Mbokonavera CHS

King George VI NSS

Sali Primary School

Honiara High PSS

Turarana CHS

Naha CHS

Coronation CHS

Koloale CHS

Mbokona CHS

Bishop Epalle CHS

Mbua Valley CHS

Komukama

Pitukoli

Ghaobata CHS


Annex 8: Cycle of Increasing Risk

Source: Stephen Yeo.

No forward planning/serviced land for

low- or middle-income

Unmanagedurban growth

Highnatural hazard

risk setting

Destruction of natural

environment

Insecure tenure ➔ precarious

structures

Increased debris load and runoff, blocked drainage

Unplanned settlement on high risk land

Loss of life and asset damage

and losses

Limitedhydro-met data

and mapping

Poor early response

uptake

Limited hazardrisk mapping in spatial planning

Annex 9: Benchmarking Current Flood Risk management Practice / 61

A forensic examination of the recent disaster suggests steps for reducing the risk of loss of life (and other impacts)infuturefloodingevents,butabroaderreviewoffloodriskmanagementpracticeintheSolomonIslandsis also valuable. This review adapts some of the measures used by Babister and Retallick (2013) to assess current practice against best practice.

Hazard assessment (mapping)Mapping of floods and floodplains is foundational forunderstandingandmanagingfloodrisk.Todate,mappingin theSolomon Islandshasbeenconfined tohistoricalflood extents and/or to geomorphic assessments.Notable is the work of Trustrum, Whitehouse, and Blaschke (1989),whichmapped theextentof floodingassociated with Tropical Cyclone Namu in 1986 as far west as the Lungga floodplain, but did not extend toHoniara.

A challenge for developing the more sophisticated mapping products derived from hydrologic and hydraulic models is the fragmented and poor nature of hydrological records in the Solomon Islands (SPC 2012, 122–38).

Risk assessmentA risk assessment considering both the likelihood and consequences of flooding is essential for quantifyingfloodriskandcomparingthemeritsofalternativefloodrisk management options. No evidence for this approach has been uncovered in the Solomon Islands.

Floodplain management measuresFlooding problems in the Solomon Islands appear to have been managed largely on an ad hoc and informal basis. Some villages have relocated after floods, suchas Sasa in northwestern Guadalcanal after the 2009 disaster (Lal and Thurairajah 2011). Many houses are raised well above the ground, and while this design

may reflect traditional building styles, there is littledoubtthatmanyfloorshavebeendeliberatelyraisedinflood-prone locations. Over recent years, developmentpartners have supported the installation of community-based early warning systems (see below). However, a considered, integrated application of the full suite of floodriskmanagementmeasures—bothstructuralandnonstructural—overthefullrangeoffloodriskhasyettofindexpressionintheSolomonIslands.

Integrating hazard knowledge into spatial plansLand-use planning is one component of best-practice floodplain risk management, particularly to containfuture flood risk.Used in associationwith appropriateincentives such as property taxes (rates), long-term infrastructure investments, and siting of commercial, health, and education facilities, it is a useful tool for guiding future urban growth away from flood-proneareas. But in Honiara, flood risk constraints seem tohave been given little consideration in urban planning, and efforts to curb the growth of informal settlements onhighly flood-prone land, and tomake serviced landavailable for sale or lease to homeowners of all income groups, have been inadequate or ineffective.

Warning/educationThe Solomon Islands Meteorological Service issues heavy rain alerts and warnings, and the National Disaster ManagementOfficeaddsinformation,broadcastviatheSolomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation and FM radio stations, about what residents should do in response. DuringtheApril2014flood,thedirectorofNDMOwason the air encouraging people to evacuate during the day. It is understood that these broadcasts had been undergirdedbyvariousfloodeducationmessages,suchas “Flooding: Find out about the worst flood in yourarea—would it reach your home?” and “Risky or not? You make up your mind.”

Annex 9: Benchmarking Current Flood Risk Management Practice


Inrecentyearstherehasbeensignificantinvestmentin community-based early warning systems in rural Guadalcanal, including at Tamboko Village. Three out of four of these systems are said to have been operational andeffectiveintheApril2014flood.

Strategic managementFlood risk management initiatives in the Solomon Islands have typically been reactive, taking place in response to

damaging flooding rather than in advance of it. AUN-Habitat(2012)reportidentifiedtheacutevulnerabilityof the Koa Hill community—even including it on a map—but evidently no substantive measures were introduced toreduceitsexposuretoflashfloodingpriortotheApril2014disaster.Onlynow,aftertheflood,doesthereseemto be a determination to address the risk.

Cleanup near mouth of the Mataniko River. Photo: Solomon Star

Annex 10: Institutional Aspects / 63

Annex 10: Institutional Aspects

General arrangements

The National Disaster Risk Management Plan of the Solomon Islands government (2009) specifiesinstitutional arrangements for disaster risk management

(DRM) throughout the country (see figure 17). Itincludes arrangements for preparing for, managing, and recovering from disaster events and establishes institutional mechanisms for addressing disaster risk reduction, including climate change adaptation.

Figure 17: Disaster Risk Management Organizational Arrangements

MDC/PDC Sub Committees

NDC Committees

National Disaster Council

Cabinet

Municpal Provincial Council Assembly

Municipal Disaster Provincial Disaster Committee Committee

Ward & Village Disaster Risk Committees

Chair: Local /Traditional

Leader



Leader



Leader

ResponseClusters

SupportClusters

RecoveryClusters

InternationalRegionalBi-lateral arrangements

InternationalRegionalBi-lateral arrangements

• Sectors• NGOs

• Sectors• NGOs

• Sectors• NGOs• Donors

DRM Arrangements & P-DOC – Deputy Prov. Sec.Recovery & Rehabilitation – Prov. Sec.

DM Arrangements & N-DOC – Dir. NDMOHazards – PS ECMRecovery & Rehabilitation & RCC – PS DPACRisk Reduction – PS Lands

Chair: PS for DRM

Accountable Minister

Planning Planning Reporting Reporting

Chair: Chair: City Clerk Prov. Secretary

National

InternationalRegional

ProvincialMunicipal

CommunityVillage


The National Disaster Council is the strategic decision-making body for mobilizing resources, setting priorities, and advising the cabinet during a disaster. It is also responsible for the overview of disaster events and the management of international, regional, and bilateral support arrangements for DRM through the National DisasterCoordinatingCommittee’s cluster groups.TheRecovery and Rehabilitation Committee of the Council is chaired by the permanent secretary of MDPAC, the Risk Reduction Committee is chaired by the permanent secretary of MLHS, and the Hazard Committee is chaired by the permanent secretary of Ministry of Environment Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM). The National Disaster Council ideally would task the three committees with forming a working group to provide direction and oversight to any build back better/BSURE strategy.5

TheNationalDisasterManagementOfficefunctionsas the Secretariat of the National Disaster Council and is responsible for coordinating, developing, and implement-ing DRM. Provincial/municipal governments—including Honiara City Council—are required to establish provin-cial disaster committees (PDCs) or municipal disaster committees (MDCs), and must also make ward-level and local-level arrangements for disaster management and risk reduction. PDCs/MDCs are responsible to their exec-utive for arrangements and planning for DRM, consistent with the national plan. They are also responsible to the council for managing and coordinating the response to disaster events within their jurisdiction.

Each PDC/MDC is supposed to prepare its own DRM plan. Honiara City Council prepared a DRM plan in2013.During theApril2014 floods, thecouncilwas

able to quickly make schools available as short-term evacuation centers, raise food relief from the business community, and clear debris in some areas.6 Learning from its emergency response procedures, the Honiara City Council has made a number of changes to its plan and to DRM organizational arrangements in order to improve communications between key departments.

Village disaster risk committees are to be established at the village and associated settlement level or where appropriate. Villages, families, and individuals within a village disaster risk committee are to provide for a local disaster planning network, including local arrangements for early warning, management of disaster response, and handling of hazard and risk reduction issues (including climate change).

Flood risk managementPart 1, section 18 of the National Disaster Risk ManagementPlanreferstotheneedforhazard-specificcontingency plans. It is understood that these, along with standard operating procedures for the National Disaster Council and its committees, have yet to be prepared. Table 32 presents a preliminary assessment of the key players involved (whether intentionally or unknowingly) infloodriskmanagementinHoniara.Earlydiscussionsindicate there may be a need for greater coordination between the Physical Planning Division of MLHS and Honiara City Council so as to avoid duplication, as well as between the Meteorological Division of MECDM and the Hydrology Unit of the Ministry of Mines, Energy andRuralElectrificationsoas toensuredeliveryofanintegrated hydrometeorological warning service.

5 The working group would include representatives from Guadalcanal Provincial Council, Honiara City Council, Malaita Provincial Council, and Western Provincial Council.

6 TheHoniaraCityCouncilhasprohibitedthedisposalofconstructionanddemolitionwasteintheregisteredlandfillsite.Thesafedisposal of such waste is not currently catered for.

Rapid Assessment of the Macro and Sectoral Impacts of Flash Floods in the Solomon Islands, April 2014 / 65

Table 32: Key Government Organizations Involved in Flood Risk Management in Honiara

Modify the Hazard Modify Exposure and Vulnerability

Modify Short-Term Responses

Ministry of Infrastructure Development Road drainage, bridge design

Ministry of Forests Watershed management

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Watershed management

Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination National planning

Commissioner of Lands, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey Land approvals

Honiara Town and Country Planning Board Planning approvals

Honiara City Council Waste removal Building approvals

Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology

Weather warnings, community education

Division of Water Resources, Ministry of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification River level monitoring

Village disaster risk committees are to be established at the village and associated settlement level or where appropriate. Villages, families, and individuals within a village disaster risk committee are to provide for a local disaster planning network, including local arrangements for early warning, management of disaster response, and handling of hazard and risk reduction issues (including climate change).

Community group discussion. Photo: World Bank

References and Materials Consulted / 67

References and Materials Consulted

Babister,M.,andM.Retallick.2013.“DefiningBestPrac-tice in Floodplain Management.” Paper presented at “National Floodplain Management—Shared Experi-ences, National Solutions,” Floodplain Management Association National Conference, Tweed Heads, New South Wales, May 28–31.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean). 2014. Handbook for Disaster Assessment. Santiago, Chile: United Nations.

Evans, B. G., L. Hutton, and L. Haller. 2004. “Closing the Sanitation Gap: The Case for Better Public Funding of Sanitation and Hygiene.” Paper prepared for Round-table on Sustainable Development, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, March 9–10.

GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Re-covery). 2010. Guidance Notes for Damage, Loss and Needs Assessment, vols. 1–3. Washington, DC: Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.

GP EHD (Guadalcanal Province Environmental Health Division). 2014. Flash-Flood Emergency Rapid Assess-ment.

Guadalcanal Province Health Facility Assessment. 2014. Flash Flooding Event 2014.

HCC (Honiara City Council). 2014a. HCC WASH Facilities Assessment V1.

HCC (Honiara City Council). 2014b. Rapid Assessment of Honiara Communities.

Hutton, G., and J. Bartram. 2008. Regional and Global Costs of Attaining the Water Supply and Sanitation Target (Target 10) of the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/economic/mdg_global_costing.pdf.

Hutton, G., L. Haller, and J. Bartram. 2007. “Global Cost-BenefitAnalysisofWaterSupplyandSanitationInterventions.” Journal of Water Health 5(4): 481–502.

ISF-UTS (Institute for Sustainable Futures at the Univer-sity of Technology, Sydney). 2011. “Solomon Islands Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Sector Brief.” Prepared for AusAID, October.

Lal, P. N., and V. Thurairajah. 2011. “Making Informed AdaptationChoices:ACaseStudyofClimateProofingRoad Infrastructure in the Solomon Islands.” Inter-national Union for the Conservation of Nature, Suva, Fiji. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climat-echange/files/documents/06_2013/iucn-infrastruc-ture-solomon-islands-case-study.pdf.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-velopment). 2011. Benefits of Investing in Water and Sanitation: An OECD Perspective. OECD Publishing. DOI:10.1787/9789264100817-en.

PCRAFI (Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Fi-nancing Initiative). 2012. Better Information for Smarter Investments. Sydney: World Bank.

Roy, P. S. 1990. Quaternary Geology of the Guadalcanal Coastal Plain and Adjacent Seabed, Solomon Islands. CCOP/SOPAC Technical Report 61.

RWSS (Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project). 2014a. RWASH Policy.

RWSS. 2014b. RWASH Strategic Plan Zero Draft.

RWSS. 2014c. SI Manual-Technical v5.

SIRC (Solomon Islands Red Cross). 2014a. Rapid WASH Assessment Database.

SIRC. 2014b. Rapid WASH Assessment West Coast SI.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/economic/mdg_global_costing.pdf




http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264100817-en


Solomon Islands Government. 2014. Honiara & Guadal-canal Flash Floods Humanitarian Action Plan. April 24. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20140425_SI_HAP_Floods_edition%201.pdf.

Solomon Islands Government. 2009. National Disaster Risk Management Plan. October. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/22085_14656n-drmpsolomonsfinaliseddraftff2%20(1).pdf.

Solomon Islands Government. 1990. National Building Code. Solomon Islands Government, Honiara.

Solomon Islands National Emergency Operations Cen-tre. 2014. “Situation Report Number 10.” Solomon Islands Government, Honiara.

Solomon Islands National Statistics Office, Ministry ofFinance and Treasury. 2009. Population and Housing Census 2009: Report on Economic Activity and Labour Force.

SolomonIslandsStatisticsOffice,DepartmentofFinanceand Treasury. 2006. Household Income and Expendi-ture Survey 2005/6. National report (part 1). Honiara. September.

Solomon Water. 2011 SIWA Strategy Action Plan.

Solomon Water. 2013. The Solomon Water Development Plan 2013–2015.

Solomon Water. 2014a. Solomon Water In and Outflow Report 1st Quarter.

Solomon Water. 2014b. Preliminary Damage Assessment.

Solomon Water. 2014c. Budget 2014.

Soubbotina, T. 2004. Beyond Economic Growth: An Intro-duction to Sustainable Development. 2nd ed. Washing-ton, DC: World Bank.

SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community). 2012.Cat-alogue of Rivers for Pacific Islands. http://www.pacificwater.org/_resources/article/files/Binder1.pdf.

Trustrum, N. A., I. E. Whitehouse, and P. M. Blaschke. 1989. Flood and Landslide Hazard: Northern Gua-dalcanal, Solomon Islands. Division of Land and Soil Sciences,DepartmentofScientificandIndustrialRe-search, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

UN-Habitat. 2011. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011. New York: United Nations.

UN-Habitat. 2012. Honiara, Solomon Islands—Cli-mate Change Vulnerability Assessment. UN-Habitat. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/re-sources/3558_alt.pdf.

U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitari-an Affairs. 2014. The Pacific: Solomon Islands. http://www.unicha.org/rop/about-ocha-regional/solomon-islands.

WASH Cluster. 2014a. WASH Cluster Solomon Islands TOR SOP.

WASH Cluster. 2014b. Draft WASH Cluster Strategy for Solomon Islands Food 2014 v4.

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20140425_SI_HAP_Floods_edition%201.pdf



http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/22085_14656ndrmpsolomonsfinaliseddraftff2%20(1).pdf



http://www.pacificwater.org/_resources/article/files/Binder1.pdf



http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/3558_alt.pdf

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/3558_alt.pdf

http://www.unicha.org/rop/about-ocha-regional/solomon-islands

http://www.unicha.org/rop/about-ocha-regional/solomon-islands

Silt deposits and flood mark inside St. John the Batist Church, Koa Hill. Photo: Stephen Yeo

Government of Solomon Islands SOLOMON ISLANDS Impacts of … · 2014-01-13 · vi / Rapid...

Documents

Transcript of Government of Solomon Islands SOLOMON ISLANDS Impacts of … · 2014-01-13 · vi / Rapid...